(Super. Ct. No. JV122733)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull ,j.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 minor's appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. In accordance with Kelly, we will provide a summary of the offenses and the proceedings in the trial court.
In February 2011, the minor, D.W., and his girlfriend, P.T., got in to an argument in the park, during the course of which the minor shoved P.T. Witnesses called the police. When Officer Montoya arrived at the scene and detained the minor, he became agitated, hostile and angry. The minor acknowledged he was on probation, and Montoya searched him for weapons. He did not find any. Montoya and the minor ended up in an altercation. The minor claimed Montoya repeatedly hit him and he suffered a fractured elbow and black eye as a result of the altercation. At the hearing, P.T. denied she and the minor were fighting and denied he pushed her.
At the time of these offenses, the minor was on probation, having been adjudged a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placed on probation in 2006. The minor was charged with misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)) and resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Following a contested hearing, the petition was sustained as to the battery and found not true as to resisting the officer. The minor was continued as a ward of the court, and granted probation conditioned on his completing three days in the juvenile work program. Various terms and conditions of probation were imposed, including that minor participate in aggression counseling. The court also noted that some of the probation conditions previously imposed no longer applied as the minor was now 18 years old.
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from the minor. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
BLEASE , Acting P.J. DUARTE ,J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...