Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ07008655
McGuiness, P.J.
Fifteen-year-old A.G. (appellant) appeals from a dispositional order placing her on non-wardship probation. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the order.
Factual and Procedural Background
On December 7, 2007, an initial wardship petition was filed alleging appellant committed: (1) assault with a deadly weapon by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), count one); and (2) battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d), count two). The petition also alleged an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) as to count one.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
At a May 19, 2008, jurisdictional hearing, the alleged victim, A.O., testified she was at school on October 24, 2007, when appellant approached her, accompanied by about ten people. A.O. felt trapped and cornered because appellant and the others were “all around,” and she felt she could not walk away without walking into someone. Appellant accused A.O. of saying negative things about her, which A.O. denied. A.O. said to appellant, “on everything I love, on my mama, I don’t want to fight you.” Appellant replied, “I don’t care about your mom,” and slapped A.O.’s cell phone out of her hand. Appellant then grabbed A.O.’s hair and slammed her face against the lockers. A.O. believed she was “knocked out” because she woke up and found herself on the floor on her side, and appellant was kicking her. A.O. tried to grab appellant’s hair, but teachers were already pulling appellant off of her. She saw blood everywhere, her face was swollen, and her body was sore. She visited a doctor the day after the incident and an x-ray showed that her nose was “kind of” “crooked.” A.O. did not recall receiving any medication. She did not return to the doctor and her nose healed on its own. On cross-examination, A.O. acknowledged she told a police officer the day after the incident that appellant approached her with five, not ten, other girls. She also acknowledged that she did not tell the officer that appellant slammed her face against the lockers.
Appellant testified that A.O. physically bumped into her on three occasions in September and October 2007. Appellant had been held back one year and did not have any friends, so she was walking alone when A.O., who was with some friends, bumped into her. Appellant believed A.O. did not like her and therefore bumped into her intentionally. A.O. also “mad-dogged” appellant, i.e., looked at her in a mean way. Appellant believed A.O. wanted to fight, and others had told appellant that A.O. did not like appellant and was saying bad things about her.
Appellant testified that on the day of the incident, she approached A.O. and asked her whether she was talking about her, and whether she wanted to fight. A.O. bumped her shoulder into appellant’s shoulder, “not hard like hard-hard, but like hard enough so I would feel it,” and appellant responded by punching A.O. in the arm and shoulder with a closed fist. A.O. hit appellant on her shoulder with a closed fist, and the two girls continued to hit each other. A.O. hit appellant about seven times, on her back, side, and shoulder. Appellant hit A.O. five to seven times, in her face and wherever else she could hit her. Appellant testified that she felt she had to defend herself because A.O. had been bumping into her and saying things about her, and appellant believed A.O. wanted to “beat [her] up and bully [her].” At some point, A.O. fell to the floor and continued to fight as she kicked appellant in the stomach and legs and pulled her hair in an attempt to pull appellant to the floor. The fight ended after A.O. scratched appellant’s eye, and appellant kicked A.O. a couple of times, and the teachers came and pulled A.O. up and pulled appellant into an office. When the teachers pulled A.O. up, A.O. was still angry and was trying to kick appellant. On cross-examination, appellant acknowledged she was “very angry” when she punched A.O. in the arm because A.O. had “brushed” her. She agreed with the district attorney that she was angry that A.O. was talking about her behind her back, and that it therefore “felt pretty good to punch her.”
On May 20, 2008, the court found that A.O. accidentally or intentionally brushed against appellant’s shoulder on October 24, 2007, and that appellant used excessive force by punching A.O. with a closed fist. The court found there was no evidence that appellant punched A.O. in an attempt to defend herself. It also found that any injury appellant received was inflicted by A.O. in self-defense. The court found both witnesses were credible. It found A.O. embellished her testimony by stating appellant slammed A.O.’s face against lockers. The court found there was insufficient evidence that A.O.’s nose was broken because she did not seek medical attention until the day after the incident, and no medical testimony or evidence was introduced indicating her nose was broken.
The court sustained the petition as to count one but reduced the offense to a misdemeanor and found appellant did not assault A.O. with a deadly weapon. The court found the petition not true as to count two (battery with serious bodily injury) and as to the great bodily injury enhancement. At the disposition hearing, the court adopted the recommendation of the probation officer and placed appellant on non-wardship probation for six months, in her mother’s custody, with various conditions, including requiring appellant to attend anger management counseling and perform 20 hours of community service.
Discussion
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that appellant committed assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury and did not act in self-defense. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the petition as to count one. Further, there is no indication that non-wardship probation was improper in this case. Counsel stated at disposition that he was “in agreement with the recommendation” and believed it was “an appropriate consequence for the behavior that [A.G.] engaged in . . . .” Appellant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings and appeared at every hearing. She has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal. We have reviewed the “entire record in this case and have found no arguable issues therein.” (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
Disposition
The dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: Siggins, J., Jenkins, J.