Opinion
E076252
07-09-2021
In re D.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.S., Defendant and Appellant.
Lisa A. Kopelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. J285245, Denise Trager Dvorak, Judge. Affirmed.
Lisa A. Kopelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAPHAEL, J.
The juvenile court adjudged defendant and appellant D.S. (minor) a ward of the court, sustaining a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleging that he had committed misdemeanor domestic battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)). The court ordered minor to remain in the custody of his father under summary probation with requirements including counseling and payment of restitution.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) We advised minor that he could file a supplemental brief, and he did not do so.
At trial, a percipient witness testified that, as to the charged incident, she observed minor shove the victim and kick her in the stomach. At the time, the victim was dating minor and was pregnant with his child. She was taken to the hospital to make sure the baby was all right and because she was feeling pain. The juvenile court expressly relied on that witness's testimony in finding that the alleged offense had been committed.
We have reviewed the entire record. We are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and that no arguable issues exist. (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, J., MILLER, J.