IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
March 15, 2012
IN RE EFREN T., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
EFREN T., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 68522)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , J.
In re Efren T.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
The minor, Efren T., was friends and classmates with 13-year-old T.P. In September 2010, during their physical education class, they were instructed to alternate between running and walking laps on the track. T.P. was moving slowly because of an injury. When the minor saw that T.P. was not running, he went to her to tell her to hurry so she would not get in trouble with her teacher.
T.P. reported to police that the minor put his arm around her shoulder, touched her breast and rubbed her genitals through her shorts. Later, T.P. testified that while the minor was touching her breast, he put his hand under her shorts and touched her genitals. She did not tell anyone about the incident and none of the students on the track witnessed it.
The minor denied touching T.P. inappropriately. Rather, he said he gave her a hug, which he often did as they were friends, and told her to hurry.
The minor was charged with a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 243.4, subdivision (e)(1). Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the allegations of the petition were found true. At the dispositional hearing, the trial court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation, conditioned on performing 80 hours of community service. The maximum period of confinement was determined to be six months. Various fines and fees were imposed, along with probation conditions including substance abuse counseling.
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 have elapsed, and we have 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 the minor.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE , P. J. NICHOLSON , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.