Opinion
G054683
08-07-2017
In re NATHANIEL P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHANIEL P., Defendant and Appellant.
Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 17DL0151) OPINION Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed. Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant Nathaniel P. on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting forth the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting that we independently review the entire record. We provided defendant 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf; no supplemental response has been received.
We have examined the entire record and appointed appellate counsel's Wende/Anders brief; we find no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2017, while serving a previous commitment at Joplin Youth Center, defendant was informed by a staff member that he was being transferred from one unit to another. Defendant collected his belongings and was escorted to his new assigned bunk. Defendant became upset and stated he wanted a different bunk because the new bunk was directly in front of the staff desk. Deputy Anthony Magdaleno explained to defendant that all the bunks were essentially in front of the staff desk and that the staff wanted him in that specific bunk because it was easier for the staff to see him.
Defendant dropped his belongings, began to breathe heavily, clenched his fists and struck a fighting stance. Defendant cursed at Magdaleno and demanded to be moved back to his old unit, or transferred to juvenile hall; defendant yelled that he would fight someone to be transferred. Magdaleno told defendant fighting would not be a good idea; defendant responded by raising his fists, cocking his right hand back, and taking one or two steps toward Magdaleno. Magdaleno adopted a defensive stance, and put his hands up as if to cover his face. Deputy Richard Nelson, who was supervising defendant's unit move, saw the encounter between Magdaleno and defendant. As defendant's cocked fist moved forward, Nelson grabbed defendant and wrestled him to the ground.
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleged that defendant committed misdemeanor assault on a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 241, subd. (c)), and misdemeanor resisting and obstructing an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court dismissed the resisting and obstructing charge, and found true the assault on a peace officer charge. The court found that the maximum term of confinement was one year, and committed defendant to juvenile hall for 30 days.
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ISSUES
Assault on a peace office requires an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on a person the defendant knows or reasonably should know is a peace officer. (Pen. Code, §§ 240, 241, subd. (c).) Here, there was ample evidence that defendant attempted to commit a violent injury on Magdaleno; had the then-present ability to do so; and knew Magdaleno was a correctional officer at the Joplin Youth Camp.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented defendant in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
FYBEL, J. WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. THOMPSON, J.