Filed 7/30/14 In re Daniel C. CA4/3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION THREE 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

DANIEL C., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 G049681 

 (Super. Ct. No. DL035730) 

 O P I N I O N 

 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. 

Clapp, Judge. Affirmed. 

 David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

 We appointed counsel to represent Daniel C. on appeal. Counsel filed a 

brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but 

advised the court counsel found no issues to argue on his behalf. Daniel was given 

30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and he has not 

filed a brief. 

 Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende 

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth 

a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these 

circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When 

specific issues are raised by the appellant himself in a Wende proceeding, we must 

expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Daniel did not file a supplemental brief raising any 

issues. 

 Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel provided the 

court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel 

questioned whether there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding 

Daniel violated the terms of his probation and whether the allegation that Daniel 

possessed a handgun “on or about September 1, 2013,” gave Daniel adequate notice for 

due process purposes. 

 We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under 

Wende and Anders, and found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On October 19, 2009, a petition was filed alleging that on December 17, 

2008, then 14-year-old Daniel violated Penal Code section 415, subdivision (1),

1

 by 

disturbing the peace, a misdemeanor. On November 9, 2009, the court placed Daniel on 

 

1

 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise 

indicated. 
3

informal probation for a period not to exceed one year under Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 654. 

 On November 9, 2010, the juvenile court sustained all the allegations and 

enhancements on a second petition. The second petition alleged two counts of 

gang-related vandalism in violation of sections 186.22, subdivision (d), 594, a felony 

(counts 1 and 4); one count of conspiracy to commit criminal threats in violation of 

section 136.1, subdivision (c)(2), a felony (count 2); one count of conspiracy to dissuade 

a witness in violation of sections 182, subdivision (a)(1), 422, a felony (count 3), and an 

allegation that Daniel committed the offenses in counts 2 and 3 for the benefit of a 

criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b). The court 

found the maximum period of confinement to be a life sentence. The court declared 

Daniel a ward of the court and committed him to juvenile hall or other appropriate 

facility for 180 days with credit for 119 days previously served. The court placed Daniel 

on probation under various terms and conditions. The court dismissed the allegations in 

the first petition on the People’s motion. 

 On March 21, 2011, the juvenile court sustained a third petition. The third 

petition alleged two counts of disobeying a gang injunction in violation of section 166, 

subdivision (a)(9), a misdemeanor. The court found the maximum term of confinement 

to be eight months. The court continued Daniel on probation under the same terms and 

conditions, including a condition he serve an additional six days in juvenile hall. 

 The juvenile court sustained a fourth petition on August 2, 2011. The 

fourth petition alleged one count of disobeying a gang injunction in violation of 

section 166, subdivision (a)(9), a misdemeanor. The court found the maximum term of 

confinement to be six months. The court continued Daniel on probation under the same 

terms and conditions, including a condition he serve an additional 25 days in juvenile 

hall. 
4

 The juvenile court sustained a fifth petition on October 3, 2011. The fifth 

petition alleged three separate violations of probation. The court continued Daniel on 

probation under the same terms and conditions, including a condition he serve an 

additional 90 days in juvenile hall. 

 The juvenile court sustained a sixth petition on November 7, 2011. The 

sixth petition alleged one count of giving false information to a peace officer in violation 

of section 148.9, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor and one count of minor in possession of 

alcohol in violation of Business and Professions Code 25662, subdivision (a). The court 

found the maximum term of confinement to be six months. The court continued Daniel 

on probation under the same terms and conditions. 

The juvenile court sustained a seventh petition on April 12, 2011. The 

seventh petition alleged five separate violations of probation. The court continued Daniel 

on probation under the same terms and conditions including a condition he serve an 

additional 30 days in juvenile hall. 

 The juvenile court sustained an eighth and a ninth petition on July 16, 2012. 

The eighth petition alleged a violation of probation. The ninth petition alleged one count 

of disobeying a gang injunction in violation of section 166, subdivision (a)(10), a 

misdemeanor. The court found the maximum term of confinement on the ninth petition 

to be six months. The court continued Daniel on probation under the same terms and 

conditions including a condition he serve an additional 60 days in juvenile hall. 

 The juvenile court sustained a 10th petition on June 6, 2013. The 

10th petition alleged eight separate violations of probation. The court continued Daniel 

on probation under the same terms and conditions including a condition he serve an 

additional 60 days in juvenile hall. 

 An 11th petition was filed on September 18, 2013. It is this petition that 

forms the basis for Daniel’s appeal. The 11th petition alleged Daniel violated the terms 

of his probation by testing positive for THC on or about August 13 and 27, 2013 (first 
5

violation); failing to attend school on August 26 and 30 and September 2 through 6, 2013 

(second violation); violating curfew on September 1, 2013 (third violation); possessing a 

handgun on or about September 1, 2013 (fourth violation); spending the night away from 

home without permission on or about September 2, 3, 4, and 6, 2013 (fifth violation); and 

failing to inform the probation officer of a new address on or about September 13, 2013 

(sixth violation). A probation violation hearing began on February 5, 2014. The 

prosecution elected to proceed on violations 3 through 6 only. On February 6, 2014, the 

juvenile court found true the allegations Daniel had violated probation as alleged in the 

third, fourth, and fifth violation. 

 The court dismissed the remaining counts on the People’s motion. The 

court ordered Daniel be continued as a ward of the court. The court ordered all prior 

terms and conditions of probation to remain with the additional condition Daniel serve 

120 days in juvenile hall or other appropriate facility. Daniel filed a timely notice of 

appeal.FACTS 

 Deputy Probation Officer Anthony Spranger testified he re-indoctrinated 

Daniel on August 27, 2013, regarding the terms and conditions of his probation, 

including the following: that he not possess any weapons; not be out of the house 

between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.; not spend the night away from home without 

permission; and notify probation of any change in his address or telephone number within 

48 hours of the change. Spranger went to Daniel’s last known residence on September 

13, 2013, and Daniel was not there. Spranger left a business card advising Daniel to 

report to probation on September 17, but Daniel never reported. 

 Daniel’s mother testified that on the evening of September 1, 2013, she 

was at home with Daniel. Daniel left the house and then she heard shooting. When she 

ran outside, her son told her to go back inside because “they” were shooting at him. As 

she watched her son walk away, she observed something in his hand. She denied telling 
6

the police that night the object in Daniel’s hand was a black, small-sized handgun. 

Daniel did not return to the house for some days. 

 Luis Santaella testified he was currently employed as an investigator for the 

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and had previously been employed as an 

Anaheim police officer. On September 1, 2013, while working as an Anaheim police 

officer he responded to a shots fired call near Daniel’s home. After responding to the 

location, Daniel’s mother approached him. She told him that her son had run off, 

apparently because some people were chasing him. She heard gunshots and went 

outside. She observed her son pulling what looked like a small caliber handgun out of his 

pants. She tried to get the gun away from him, but he took off running. 

 Anaheim Police Officer Jamie Pietras testified he spoke with Daniel at the 

police station on September 5, 2013, regarding an incident on September 1, 2013. Prior 

to speaking to Daniel, the officer read him his Miranda rights.

2

 Daniel indicated he 

understood his rights. Daniel was asked about a nine-millimeter handgun. Daniel said he 

possessed a nine-millimeter handgun for his protection shortly after an incident on 

September 1, 2013, when he was shot at by rival gang members. Daniel indicated he 

possessed the gun for several weeks before giving it to someone else. 

DISCUSSION 

 The fact counsel filed the opening brief under Wende confirms he does not 

believe the issues he listed are arguable. When specific issues are raised by the appellant 

himself in a Wende brief, we must expressly address those issues in our opinion. (Kelly, 

supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 110, 120, 124.) In this case, Daniel did not file a supplemental 

brief. We have also reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende

and Anders and considered the issues listed by counsel. We find no arguable issues on 

appeal. 

 

2

 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. 
7

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 

 O’LEARY, P. J. 

WE CONCUR: 

BEDSWORTH, J. 

MOORE, J.