From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Brandon

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.
Nov 21, 2003
B166258 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2003)

Opinion

B166258.

11-21-2003

In re BRANDON R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON R., Defendant and Appellant.

Brandon R., in pro. per., and Holly Jackson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Thirteen-year-old Brandon R. was charged by petition with assault with a deadly weapon (a razor) upon another minor. A contested disposition hearing was held, the petition was sustained, Brandon was placed at home on probation, and his maximum period of confinement was set at four years. Brandon filed a notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Brandons lawyer filed a brief in which no issues were raised, and we notified Brandon of his right to submit any issues he wanted us to consider.

In response, Brandon sent us a letter in which he claims he is not guilty of the charged assault, that he was merely defending himself with his hands and did not have a razor, and that he had three different lawyers from the public defenders office before his "trial" (which he "didnt like" and found "confusing"). We have independently examined the record with these points in mind and found substantial evidence to support the juvenile courts findings, including the testimony of witnesses who saw Brandon swing at the victim several times and cut him with a "little razor." The court rejected Brandons testimony to the contrary (he claimed it was his ring that cut the victim, not a razor), and the juvenile courts credibility call is not ours to second-guess. (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1138-1139.) As for Brandons complaint about the number of lawyers who represented him before the hearing, he does not tell how this might have caused prejudice to his defense, and we cannot see that it did.

We are satisfied that Brandons lawyer has fulfilled her duties, and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: SPENCER, P.J., ORTEGA, J.


Summaries of

In re Brandon

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.
Nov 21, 2003
B166258 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2003)
Case details for

In re Brandon

Case Details

Full title:In re BRANDON R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.

Date published: Nov 21, 2003

Citations

B166258 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2003)