Opinion
C081741
04-21-2017
In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.R., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JV136875)
Appointed counsel for minor J.R. has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the order appealed from.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
The minor has two brothers named Kevin and Carlos. In November 2015, the minor, then 13 years old, got into an argument with her mother and Kevin after she was sent home from school for smoking marijuana. After Kevin called the minor's probation officer, the minor went to her room to pack some things to leave the apartment.
When Kevin saw the minor trying to cut off her ankle monitor with a kitchen knife, they began to argue again. During the argument, the minor charged at Kevin with the knife. When the minor was about an arm's length away from him, Carlos tackled her to the ground. As Carlos and the minor wrestled on the floor, the knife came loose. Eventually, the minor picked up the knife, cut her ankle monitor off, and ran out the door. Kevin subsequently called 911.
Deputy Richard Limpach of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department and a trainee responded to the reported assault. When they approached the minor, she refused to provide her name. The minor was handcuffed and secured in the back of the patrol car. While in the patrol car, the minor swore at Deputy Limpach and the trainee. She also kicked the side door and the wall that separates the back of the patrol car from the front. Eventually, a witness was brought to the patrol car for a field show-up identification.
Prior to contacting the minor, Deputy Limpach reviewed a photograph of the minor that had been taken in connection with a previous arrest.
When the witness arrived, the minor refused to get out of the patrol car. After she was physically removed from the car, the minor refused to stand. Deputy Limpach and the trainee held the minor up and moved her forward. As they did so, the minor kicked Deputy Limpach's leg. She then screamed at Deputy Limpach and the trainee, threatened to spit on them, and kicked them with her feet. As a consequence, she was secured in maximum restraints.
On November 9, 2015, a juvenile wardship petition was filed (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), charging the minor with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) ; count one), assault with a deadly weapon, a knife (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count two), use of force and violence on a police officer (§ 243, subd. (b); count three), and evading payment of a public transportation system charge (§ 640, subd. (c)(1); Pub. Utilities Code, § 99211; count four).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On November 10, 2015, the juvenile court ordered the minor detained. A contested jurisdiction hearing was held on January 12, 2016. Prior to the introduction of evidence, defense counsel declared a doubt as to the minor's capacity to stand trial. The juvenile court denied the oral motion, finding substantial evidence was not offered to raise a doubt as to the minor's competency. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 709, subd. (a).) The court also granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss count four of the petition.
Following a contested competency hearing on June 26, 2015, in a prior Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 proceeding, the juvenile court determined the minor was competent to proceed with delinquency proceedings within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 709. The minor appealed and we affirmed the juvenile court's order. (In re J.R. (Aug. 23, 2016, C080381) [nonpub. opn.].) In this case, defense counsel declared a doubt as to the minor's competency based on the same grounds raised in the prior proceeding. --------
On January 20, 2016, the juvenile court found the remaining counts in the petition to be true beyond a reasonable doubt and sustained the petition. On February 3, 2016, the court granted the minor's request to reduce counts one and two from felonies to misdemeanors. Thereafter, the court held a disposition hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined the minor was a continued ward of the juvenile court and committed her to 91 days in juvenile hall with credit for 91 days already served. The minor was committed to Level A placement, but placement was stayed pending an appearance progress report in 90 days. The minor was released to the custody of her mother on electronic monitoring for 30 days to be followed by 14 days of home supervision. The juvenile court also imposed various terms and conditions of probation.
The minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and the minor has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor. Consequently, we affirm the order appealed from. (Id. at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed.
/s/_________
HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
MURRAY, Acting P. J. /s/_________
RENNER, J.