Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J37622
Pollak, J.
J.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order in proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The juvenile’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting our independent review of the record. The minor was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
Background
On June 12, 2007, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) alleging that on May 1, 2007, the minor committed one count of sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (e)(1)), one count of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1), and one count of soliciting another to engage in lewd conduct (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (a)). A readiness conference was held on July 19, 2007, at which the court continued the matter to September 19 for a further readiness conference. On September 19, the court continued the matter to November 14 for a contested jurisdictional hearing. On November 14 the matter was continued to January 9, 2008, again for a contested hearing.
The district attorney later amended the first count to allege violation of Penal Code section 243.2.
On January 9, 2008, an amended petition was filed, adding one count of petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)) alleged to have been committed on December 3, 2007. A “readiness conference” was scheduled on the new allegation for January 30. At the January 9 jurisdictional hearing on the original allegations, the victim of the first three counts testified that she and the juvenile were in a science class together at their high school. On the day of the alleged incidents, she testified, she sat next to J.C. in class because the seat she ordinarily occupied was wet. While the class was taking a test, she and J.C. began talking. J.C. asked if he could see her exam, he began rubbing his hand against her thigh “in a sensual sort of way.” She told him to “back off.” She “grabbed his hand and tried to move it away.” He asked her to “just let me leave it there.” She again told him “no.” He persisted, and then asked, “Do you want to see my penis?” She told him “no” and he replied, “Come on, just look just once. Just a peek.” When she again refused “he pulled it out,” and told her to look. He then asked her to “just touch it. Just let me see your hand. Just touch it.” She refused, and he persisted.
A biology teacher from J.C.’s high school testified that the victim approached him the day after the exam and he gave her a pass to leave class for the day. She returned to class several days later after J.C. had been moved to a different class. The teacher also testified that he had witnessed the juvenile “annoy[ing]” girls in the class before. The teacher had seen J.C. bothering the victim at “most every” class.
Another student testified that she was sitting near J.C. during the biology exam. She did not see anything untoward occur between the alleged victim and him during the exam, though she did observe “a little talking.” A second student also testified that he saw nothing transpire between the two of them during the exam. He also testified that the teacher was at his computer during most of the exam and only walked around the classroom “every now and then.” He was sitting approximately four to five feet behind J.C. and the victim. He admitted that he and J.C. were friends and that he did not want J.C. to get in trouble. He further stated that he “wasn’t really paying attention” to what was happening in the classroom during the exam. A third student testified that he did not remember where he was sitting in relation to J.C. and the alleged victim but that he only remembered seeing J.C. take the exam and then “interact with the other students” when everyone was finished. He also stated that he was friends with J.C. and with the first student who testified. A fourth student testified that he was sitting “probably three, two desks” away from J.C. and the victim. In contrast to all of the other student witnesses who testified that there were approximately 10 empty seats in the classroom that day, this witness testified that there were no open seats. He stated that he did not see J.C. do anything “but take his test.” He testified that he saw the victim do the same. He also stated that he was “escorted . . . out of the classroom” by the teacher because his cell phone rang approximately 30 minutes into the exam.
J.C. testified that he “didn’t have a problem with” the victim sitting next to him, that he “took [his] test” and then “talked about CSI Miami” with her. He denied that he touched the victim, unzipped his pants or asked the victim to do anything. When asked if he had ever annoyed the victim previously he replied, “I don’t know. She never told me about it . . . . [I]f I annoyed her, she never displayed it. It’s not like I did it personally just to get on her nerves.” When asked if he “ever annoy[ed] other students in class,” he replied, “I don’t know what I do unless they tell me.” When pressed whether he had “ever take[n] a book and throw[n] it across the floor from another student,” he stated, “Well, probably when I just got to the class . . . probably the first couple of months. But after that, no.” When asked again if he had “ever annoy[ed] any other girl in the class,” he again stated, “I just said I didn’t know if I did or not. Because nobody told me anything.” When asked if he and his friends had ever teased the victim he stated, “No. Well, yeah. We did. We didn’t tease her as in like, hah, hah, hah. We talked about her. So that happens. . . . I’m not going to say, I’m just like an innocent guy.”
On January 11, 2008,the juvenile court found true the allegations of battery and indecent exposure, but found not true the allegation of soliciting another to engage in lewd conduct. On January 30, J.C. admitted the allegation of petty theft.
On March 13, 2008, the juvenile court adjudged J.C. a ward of the court and placed him on probation. It deemed the first, second and fourth counts misdemeanors and set the maximum time for confinement at one year and four months. It further ordered J.C. to pay $1,000 in costs and set various other conditions of probation.
On March 14, 2008, the juvenile filed a notice of appeal, challenging the court’s jurisdictional findings, specifying the contested hearing on January 9, and the ruling on January 11, 2008.
Discussion
By admitting the allegation of petty theft, the juvenile waived his right to the jurisdictional hearing on that count. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 657; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.774(e).) The jurisdictional hearing on the remaining counts was not timely under Welfare and Institutions Code section 657, subdivision (a)(2), which requires a hearing for a minor not in detention within 30 days of the date that the petition was filed. However the juvenile waived his right to challenge the timeliness of the jurisdictional hearing by not objecting below. (See In re Maurice E. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 474, 479.) J.C. was represented by counsel throughout the course of the proceedings. We review the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings in the light most favorable to the juvenile court order. (See, e.g., In re Arcenio V. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 613, 615.) Where there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's decision, we must affirm. (Id. at pp. 615-616.) Although accounts of the events that formed the basis for the May 1, 2007 offenses differed, there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s jurisdictional findings.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J., Siggins, J.