Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J224997 Gale Kaneshiro, Judge.
NARES, Acting P. J.
The juvenile court found true allegations that 15-year-old David O. (the minor), committed assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), battery resulting in infliction of serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)), and simple battery (Pen. Code, § 242). The court declared the minor a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, removed him from the custody of his parents, and committed him to the Breaking Cycles program for up to 240 days in accordance with the recommendations of the probation department.
The minor appeals and we affirm the juvenile court order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Three boys approached A.M., Alexis M., Luis F., and April M. at Oceanside's CinemaStar mall on the evening of January 8, 2010. One of the boys, identified as the minor's younger brother Nathan O., demanded money and jewelry from A.M. and Luis. A.M> thought the boys were joking and told them to calm down. Nathan and his two friends left and returned a few minutes later with reinforcements. He again demanded money and was refused. A fight ensued between Nathan and Alexis. Someone hit Luis as he ran away from the fight. The minor threw punches at A.M. and a group of "six or so" boys joined in the beating. A.M. suffered a broken arm in the incident. Alexis identified the minor as being present at the scene and participating in the assault.
The six-count petition alleged a criminal street gang enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) as to counts 1 through 4, and a Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (d) gang enhancement as to counts 5 and 6. The People dismissed counts 3 and 4 for insufficiency of the evidence, and then rested their case. The court dismissed the gang enhancements pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1, finding that the People had not met their burden of proof. Finally, the court dismissed count 5 for insufficient evidence. The court found true the remaining allegations set forth in counts 1, 2 and 6.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel refers us to possible but not arguable issues, specifically: (1) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in imposing probation conditions that the minor not associate with known gang members, not wear gang clothing or emblems known to identify with the Mesa gang, not travel to Mexico except in the custody and control of a parent, and that he provide a DNA sample; and (2) whether the probation condition prohibiting the minor from associating with known Mesa gang members interfered with his First Amendment right to associate with his brother.
We granted the minor permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. The minor received competent representation in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, J.O'ROURKE, J.