Super. Ct. No. J225-590 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carolyn Caietti, Judge. Affirmed.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
The juvenile court declared 14-year-old Carlos S. a ward of the court after it found true allegations that he committed a felony assault with a deadly weapon, and that he personally used a deadly weapon. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; undesignated statutory references are to this code.) The juvenile court placed Carlos with his parents, and ordered him to pay a restitution fine in the amount of $119. (§ 730.5.)
On March 3, 2010, Carlos assaulted the victim with a sharpened screwdriver after the victim confronted Carlos and accused him of flattening the tires of his brother's car. Carlos denied having or swinging a screwdriver at the victim, and claimed that he had a screwdriver the day before to fix a remote control car. Two acquaintances of Carlos who were "hanging out" with him did not see anything in Carlos's hands during the incident. The victim, however, testified that Carlos had swung at his stomach and chest with a sharpened screwdriver, and later swung at him with a "Razor" scooter. During an investigation of the incident, police learned that Carlos had been suspended from school the day of the incident for having a screwdriver in his backpack.
The People filed a section 602 petition alleging that Carlos had committed two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and that he personally used deadly weapons consisting of a sharpened screwdriver and a metal Razor scooter. After the juvenile court found true the assault charge and allegation regarding the screwdriver, it dismissed the remaining count and allegation regarding the scooter finding reasonable doubt existed.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. She presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), she listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether: (1) sufficient evidence supported the true findings; and (2) the trial abused its discretion in denying Carlos's request to strike two gang related probation conditions. We granted Carlos permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Carlos on this appeal.