Opinion
E073237
02-13-2020
In re V.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.J., Defendant and Appellant.
Forest M. Wilkerson, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J280633) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Pamela P. King, Judge. Affirmed. Forest M. Wilkerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Following a jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true that defendant and appellant V.J. (minor) committed a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)). The court thereafter reduced the offense to a misdemeanor and placed minor on informal probation in the custody of his parents. Minor appeals from the juvenile court's true finding. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
N.P. and minor were friends who sometimes hung out and played video games together at their high school. On April 11, 2019, a group of kids, including minor and N.P., were playing a video game and "talking trash." After minor lost the game, he told N.P. that he would shoot up the school and that N.P. would be first. Specifically, minor stated, "'I will shoot up the school, and you will be first.'" Initially, N.P. thought minor's statement was "a joke." However, after minor repeated the same statement in their joint third period class, N.P. became more concerned and afraid that minor would shoot up the school. The second time minor made the statement, N.P. believed minor was "serious" about his statement. Minor did not state he was joking or kidding and he did not laugh when he made the statement.
After speaking with a friend, N.P. reported minor's threats to the assistant principal and subsequently reported the threats to the school resource officer, Deputy Garcia. N.P. told Deputy Garcia that he believed the threat to be a joke, at first, but the second time he felt concerned and was afraid. N.P. was afraid when he left school on the day minor made his statements and only returned to school when he learned that minor would not be attending school the next day.
Deputy Garcia interviewed minor, who described his relationship with N.P. as "frenemies," someone who is "like he's a friend but an enemy." Minor's description of his relationship with N.P. caused Deputy Garcia to be concerned. Minor told the deputy that he said he was going to shoot up the school and that when he returned "the first person he would shoot was [N.P.]." Minor explained that N.P. had been talking "trash" to him and he was angry. Minor felt that people had been gossiping about the incident throughout the day and that it had gotten blown out of proportion.
Minor's best friend E.I. testified on behalf of minor. E.I. was present on April 11, 2019, when minor made his statements to N.P. E.I. heard arguing between N.P. and minor and also heard something about shooting up the school, but he had the impression that minor was just joking. However, E.I. acknowledged that he had told Deputy Garcia the day after the argument that the kids present were all shocked and that minor did not laugh it off or say he was joking at the time of the incident. E.I. also informed the deputy that minor also stated he would use N.P. as a "meat shield."
III
DISCUSSION
After minor appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so. An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, here, minor, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. MILLER
J.