Full Opinion

Filed 11/2/26 In re B.R. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re B.R., a Person Coming Under the H054393 Juvenile Court Law. (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 24JV000341) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.R., Defendant and Appellant. B.R. was declared a ward of the juvenile court and committed to the Monterey County Probation Department Youth Center Program (Youth Center) after he admitted to one felony count of discharging a firearm into an inhabited dwelling. (Pen. Code, § 246.)1 He was released from the Youth Center early and successfully completed an aftercare electronic monitoring program. Before the juvenile court, B.R. filed a post- disposition motion to reduce the admitted felony count to a misdemeanor, to dismiss the case, and to seal his record. (§ 17, subd. (b); Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 700.3, 786.) The juvenile court denied the motion. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief stating the case and the facts but raising no specific issues. Counsel requests independent review of the record under People v. 1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) or that this court exercise its discretion to independently review the record under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We notified B.R. of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days and received no response. We have independently reviewed the entire record and conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal.2 (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly).) We will therefore affirm the order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND B.R. was taken into police custody for discharging a firearm five times into a residential neighborhood in a presumed gang-related shooting. The Monterey County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, and B.R. admitted to one felony count of discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling. (§ 246.) In August 2024, the juvenile court declared the offense a felony, adjudged B.R. a ward of the court for two years, and committed him to the Youth Center for a total of 365 custody days. This court later affirmed the dispositional order. (In re B.R. (Nov. 24, 2025, H052460) [nonpub. opn.], as mod. on denial of rehg. Dec. 19, 2025.) At a three-month review meeting, B.R.’s treatment team at the Youth Center commended him for good behavior. B.R. received another positive evaluation at the six- month review, and he was released from custody with aftercare electronic monitoring after the nine-month review hearing in May 2025. He successfully completed the aftercare program in August 2025. In October 2025, the probation department recommended that B.R.’s probation terminate early, and B.R. moved to reduce his felony 2 It has not been established whether post-disposition juvenile delinquency appeals are subject to automatic independent review under Wende or the more limited review procedure under Delgadillo. We need not decide the issue here because Delgadillo granted appellate courts discretion to conduct an independent review of the record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 222, 232–233.) Considering B.R. may have relied upon this court’s notice that referenced only Wende and stated that we would examine the record since counsel filed a no-issue brief, we have exercised our discretion to conduct an independent review. 2 to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b).3 The juvenile court denied B.R.’s motion and declined to adopt the probation department’s recommendation to continue to evaluate B.R.’s behavior in the community. B.R. again moved to reduce his felony to a misdemeanor in May 2026. He argued that because the section 246 count was a “wobbler,” his admission to the count as a felony did not eliminate the trial court’s authority to reduce it to a misdemeanor where a prison sentence was not mandated by statute. He also urged that because “reduction of a crime from a felony to a misdemeanor is in no way contrary to the goal of ‘rehabilitation,’ ” minors like B.R. who have taken their rehabilitation seriously “must be afforded the benefits of Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b).” Additionally, B.R. requested that the court seal his record after dismissing the case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786), and the probation department recommended that his probation be terminated. At the hearing, the parties disputed whether section 246 was a wobbler. B.R.’s counsel argued the alternative punishment for county jail listed in the statute reflected the possibility of punishment as a misdemeanor and asserted that every wobbler “ ‘is … a felony’ ” until action is taken to reduce it. (§ 246.) B.R.’s counsel explained further that part of the strategy in entering the plea was “knowing this was a 17(b) wobbler charge,” and that the prosecution did not dispute in connection with his prior motion that section 246 was a wobbler. His counsel stated: “[B.R.’s] done absolutely everything he could possibly do to get this reduced to a misdemeanor. It’s what the section is for. He was immediately sent to the Youth Center. He was never placed on probation. He successfully completed that to the point that [p]robation wanted him to be released from probation nine months early. That’s also when we argued a 17(b) motion and the Court 3 Under section 17, subdivision (b), “[t]he trial court has discretion to ‘reduce a wobbler to a misdemeanor either by declaring the crime a misdemeanor at the time probation is granted or at a later time—for example, when the defendant has successfully completed probation.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 885.) 3 kept him on. [¶] Again, we are here nine months later. He’s done excellent, he has multiple jobs, he’s a positive member of the community, and we do think he should be entitled to that. [¶] The charge itself, while serious, is a status [sic] factor. That will never change. His behavior, though, has.” The prosecution argued the offense could not be punished as a misdemeanor under the plain language of the statute, noting that section 246 is listed as a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision (c). According to the prosecution, the alternative punishment designated in the statute reflected a sentencing structure for felony probation. The juvenile court denied B.R.’s motion in its entirety. Without deciding whether section 246 was a wobbler, the court declined to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor despite B.R.’s good behavior on probation due to the “serious nature of the underlying offense,” which the court stated “really had an impact on everybody.” The court also denied B.R.’s request to seal his record since, according to the probation report, it had previously determined that section 246 was an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), that was not being reduced to a misdemeanor.4 However, the court adopted the recommendation for an early termination of both B.R.’s probation and his wardship, and ordered the outstanding restitution fine converted to a civil judgment. B.R. timely appealed from the order denying his motion. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 800.) 4 Although Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 “is a broadly written statute, which requires sealing the records of certain juvenile offenders” (In re Joshua R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 864, 868), it prohibits a court from sealing or dismissing a case “if the petition was sustained based on the commission of an offense listed in” Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) when the youth was 14 years of age or older unless the offense was dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786, subd. (d).) 4 II. DISCUSSION We have carefully reviewed the entire record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106, including the motion filed by B.R. and the arguments presented at the ensuing hearing. We conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal that would result in an outcome more favorable to B.R. and therefore conclude that appellate counsel fully complied with his responsibilities. (Wende, at pp. 441–443.) III. DISPOSITION The order denying B.R.’s motion to reduce his felony to a misdemeanor, to dismiss the case, and to seal his record is affirmed. 5 ______________________________________ Adams, J. WE CONCUR: ____________________________________ Greenwood, P. J. ____________________________________ Danner, J. H054393 People v. B.R.