Filed 5/18/16 In re Aldo R. CA 4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re ALDO R

. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALDO R

. ,
Defendant and Appellant. D069176

(Super. Ct. No. J234348)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder

A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.

Kendall Dawson Wasley , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2013 and 2014
, the district attorney filed three separate petitions against Aldo

R

. (Minor) alleging offenses for unrelated incidents ; the alleged offenses in the last two2

petitions occurred while Minor was on probation for his prior offense(s)

. The first
petition ( G5284 ) allege s that he battered his girlfriend in violation of Penal Code section

243, subdivision (e)(1), which Minor admitted

. The court declared his wardship and
placed him on probation.
The second petition (G5673) alleges that Minor violated a protective order over
his girlfriend (Pen. Code
, § 273.6, subd. (a)), which he again admitted. The court
continued his wardship and placed him on probation.
The third petition (G5856 ) alleges that Minor burglarized a grocery store
,
classified at the time as a felony (Pen. Code
, § 459), which he also admitted. The court
continued his wardship, placed him on probation, committed him to the Short Term
Offender Program (STOP) for a period not to exceed 90 days, and after Minor violated
his probation terms
, additionally committed him to Camp Barrett for a period not to
exceed 365 days

.

In late 2014 , M inor petition ed the court to reduce his felony burglary offense to a
misdemeanor under Proposition 47 , and relatedly
, requested DNA expungement. The
People opposed his request for DNA expungement. Although the court reclassified his
felony offense as a misdemeanor, it did n ot rule on his request for DNA expungement

. Instead, the court joined his case with another case for Proposition 47

- related writ3

proceedings (

Alejandro N

. ) 1 and ordered that the resolution of Alejandro N. would " also
apply to [ Minor ' s ] case. "

At Minor ' s September 2015 annual review hearing
, his probation officer reported
that Minor successfully completed his program at Camp Barrett. T he court found that

Minor satisfactorily completed the terms of probation for the offense alleged in the third
petition ( G5856 ) , dismissed the petition, sealed all records pertaining to it , and terminated
jurisdiction . Minor ' s counsel did not request (1) sealing for the records pertaining to his

first and second petitions or (2) DNA expungement

. Appellate c ounsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ) raising
possible , but not arguable issue s

. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as
mandated by Wende

. We offered Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal,

but he has not responded. 2

DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has not identified any reasonably arguable
issues for reversal on appeal. Pursuant to Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, we have engaged

in a review of the record for error. Pursuant to Anders
, supra , 386 U.S. 738, appellate

1 Alejandro N. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209
, was filed on July 23, 2015. The minor ' s petition for writ of mandate in that case raised the issues of Proposition 47 ' s applicability to juvenile offenders as well as the propriety of DNA expungement based on a reclassified misdemeanor . ( Id. at pp. 1216

- 1217.)

2 The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the analysis of possible error based on this record. Therefore
, we omit the traditional statement of facts.4

counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issue s to assist our review

of the record:

1. Whether the juvenile cou rt err ed by not sealing the records of the first and second
petitions under the law at the time of the hearing?

2. Whether the issue of counsel ' s failure to renew the request to expunge [Minor ' s]

DNA from the state ' s data bank is properly before this cou rt?

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende
, supra ,
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
, supra , 3 86 U.S. 738, including the issue s suggested by

counsel , and have not found any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal

. T he

trial court properly limited its sealing order to the third petition
, G5856 . ( In re Y.A.
(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, 525 .) F urther , because Minor ' s counsel did not renew his
request for DNA expungement with the trial court, the issue is not properly before us.
Competent counsel has represented Minor in this appeal.5 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

M C DONALD, J.

IRION, J.