Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, Super. Ct. No. JW113531, Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.
Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Harris, Acting P.J., Levy, J., Dawson, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant, Amanda C., was charged in a petition filed on March 13, 2007, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, with misdemeanor battery of a school employee (Pen. Code, § 243.6) and misdemeanor battery on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 243.2, sub d. (a)). At the conclusion of a contested jurisdictional hearing on May 2, 2007, the juvenile court found both allegations true. At the dispositional hearing on May 16, 2007, the juvenile court placed Amanda on probation not to exceed three years.
Amanda’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Amanda was advised she could file her own brief with this court. By letter on September 28, 2007, we invited Amanda to submit additional briefing. To date she has not done so.
FACTS
At noon on November 27, 2006, Tina Tyler, a campus security guard at West High School in Bakersfield, broke up a fight between Amanda and Maria P. The girls had been pulling each other’s hair. As the girls separated, Amanda swung twice at Tyler, hitting her chest. Tyler was wearing a yellow T-shirt with the word “security” written in large letters. When Amanda punched Tyler, the two girls were already 10 or 15 feet apart from each other.
Maria initially denied going to West High School or being involved in a fight there, but later identified Amanda as the person with whom she fought. Maria was sitting, talking to a friend, when Amanda approached and accused her of talking about her. Maria denied the accusation. Amanda became angry and pushed Maria. Amanda pushed Maria two or three times. Maria did not push back and did not touch Amanda. Amanda started pulling Maria’s hair and then Maria pulled Amanda’s hair. Maria saw Amanda hit Tyler.
Pete Bustamante, another campus security guard, arrived and saw the two students 10 to 15 feet apart. He also saw Amanda swinging at Tyler. Bustamante took Amanda to the ground.
Shelly W., a student at West High School and friend of Amanda’s, watched the fight between Amanda and Maria. Shelly explained that four security guards pulled Amanda off Maria. Shelly never saw Amanda push or hit Tyler. Shelly said that Tyler was primarily holding Amanda back from Maria. Shelly never saw Amanda hit any security guard.
Amanda testified that she got into a fight with Maria after asking Maria if she had been talking about her. According to Amanda, Maria got up and pushed her on her back. In self-defense, Amanda got up, turned around, and pushed Maria back. As Amanda walked away, Maria grabbed her by her hair and threw Amanda against a brick wall. Then four security guards arrived. Tyler grabbed Amanda by her arm, putting her nails into Amanda’s arm and leaving bruises. The other three guards took Amanda down to the ground. Amanda denied hitting Tyler and admitted pushing Maria only once after Maria pushed her. Amanda also denied pulling Maria’s hair. Amanda asserted that Maria was the one who started the fight.
The probation report noted that Amanda had a grade of F in each subject in school and was deficient 57.50 credits. The probation report recommended that Amanda not possess or consume any drug, intoxicant or inhalant, and that she submit to a drug detection test as directed by the probation officer. The probation officer recommended Amanda seek counseling and that she be placed on a curfew until age 18.
At the disposition hearing, the court ordered probation and placed Amanda in her father’s custody. The court learned that Amanda was, at that time, 60 credits behind in her school work. Amanda was ordered to enter counseling, to 64 hours in the juvenile court work program, to enroll in school, and to avoid the victims. The court imposed a search condition on probation as well as a drug and alcohol testing condition. The court also imposed a curfew condition of probation.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in an appeal from a juvenile proceeding, our court reviews the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine if there is substantial evidence – evidence that is credible and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense. (In re Ryan D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 854, 859.) We are in no position to weigh conflicts or disputes in the evidence. We consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving that party the benefit of every reasonable inference which can be drawn from that evidence tending to establish the correctness of the trial court’s decision. We resolve all conflicts in favor of the trial court’s decision. We view the entire record to find any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which supports the decision of the trier of fact. (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1373.) There was substantial evidence that Amanda committed both counts. Although she proffered conflicting evidence, we resolve all conflicts in favor of the juvenile court’s decision.
The terms and conditions of probation appear to be reasonably related to Amanda’s rehabilitation, even though she was only found to have committed two misdemeanor batteries. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, sub d. (b); In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1033 [conditions of probation impermissible for adult probationer may be imposed in rehabilitation of minors].)
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.