Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. MJ 18828, Robin R. Kesler, Referee.
Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FLIER, J.
D.T., a minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s sustaining a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging he committed a single count of misdemeanor battery, and the dispositional order directing his placement in a closed suitable placement facility.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 18, 2010, the District Attorney of Riverside County filed a petition charging appellant with a single count of misdemeanor battery, alleging he unlawfully used force and violence against the victim on or about June 10 to June 15, 2010. The matter was heard and adjudicated by a commissioner in Riverside County on July 12 and 13, 2010. On July 19, 2010, the Riverside County juvenile court found the allegations of the petition to be true and sustained the petition. Despite some minor inconsistencies, the court found the evidence established the allegations of the petition to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The court declared the offense was a misdemeanor and appellant was a person described by section 602. However, because appellant was legally a resident of Los Angeles County, the Riverside court ordered appellant’s case to be transferred to Los Angeles County for disposition.
Accordingly, on August 9, 2010, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a dispositional order in accordance with the findings made by the court in Riverside. The Los Angeles court directed the minor’s physical custody be taken from his parents or guardian and committed him to the care and custody of probation. The court further ordered the minor placed in a closed suitable placement facility.
The juvenile court declared the maximum period of confinement to be three years 10 months, with 119 days of predisposition custody credit.
According to appellant’s brief, the period of maximum confinement consists of the following: (1) a prior 2009 sustained felony petition for criminal threats, carrying a maximum confinement time of three years; (2) a prior 2010 sustained felony petition for threatening a public official, carrying a midterm sentence of 24 months, one third of which is eight months; (3) the present sustained misdemeanor petition for simple battery, carrying a term of six months, one-third of which is two months. The total maximum confinement time adds up to three years 10 months.
Appellant timely appealed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant and the victim (Tony A., age 15) resided in a juvenile group home in Riverside County. On or about June 10, 2010, the victim reported to the staff at the group home that an electric fan was missing from his room. That evening, about 9:30 p.m., the victim was lying on his bed when appellant and two accomplices, one of them Eric G., entered the room. Appellant told the victim, “Why are you being a snitch?” He then started punching the victim in the chest and arms. Eric and the other accomplice also began to hit the victim. The victim testified he was punched about 10 times. After the incident, the victim reported to a staff member that he was in pain from playing football, but he was actually in pain from being struck. The victim had decided to “le[ave] it alone” because he thought it would go worse for him if he told. The victim recalled that his roommate, Jacob C., was in the room the first night he was attacked but not during any subsequent incidents.
The victim was not clear about the dates of occurrence.
According to the victim, daily over the next few days appellant and the two others continued to hit him until June 16, 2010. Appellant would strike the victim in his room, the laundry room and the hallway, both day and night. The victim did not defend himself or call for help, but he testified he did yell at appellant to stop. He also tried to protect himself by crossing his arms across his chest. Appellant never hit the victim in the face, and his T-shirt covered the bruises.
On June 16, when the victim could not take the pain anymore, he told his probation officer about the beatings. By that time, the victim had been taken to the hospital twice: once after the first beating, when he told the doctor he had been injured playing football; and a second time, when he showed the doctor his bruises and divulged that someone had been hitting him.
Ms. Butler, the supervisor of the group home, testified that on June 16, 2010, the victim asked to speak with her privately and told her he was having problems with appellant and two other residents of the home. He raised his shirt and showed her bruises on his shoulders, arms and upper chest. Butler testified there were bruises as large as five to six inches in size, with some appearing more recent than others. It appeared that someone was beating the victim, so she became alarmed, took him to the doctor and called the police.
The victim at first told the police he was injured while playing football. He then changed his story and said that appellant and two others had entered his room over the last several days and hit him many times. Butler wrote a report that documented the victim’s statements about being hit at different times throughout the home and that the victim’s initial report of a football injury was, in actuality, the beginning of the attacks. Based on the reported incidents, appellant was removed from the group home.
A Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy responded to the call at the group home on June 16, 2010, and interviewed Butler and the victim. The victim told the deputy sheriff that on several nights appellant and others had hit him in his bedroom, and his roommate was not present during the attacks. He was not certain about the exact dates the attacks occurred. The deputy examined the victim’s body and observed several large bruises on the victim’s upper arms and chest, which were consistent with what the victim had related. Appellant and his two accomplices were arrested.
Appellant’s and the victim’s rooms did not share the same hallway, and the hallways at the group home were kept under observation at night. However, there was evidence the group home staff at times worked in the office doing paperwork or would walk around, during which time it was possible for someone to cross from one hallway to another via a laundry room without observation.
At trial, Eric admitted he hit the victim because the victim was talking about Eric’s family. Eric maintained he only hit the victim on June 10, 2010, and he denied anyone else was involved. Jacob, the roommate, testified he was with the victim 24 hours a day, except for the bathroom. Jacob denied that appellant ever entered their room or hit the victim.
After waiving his Fifth Amendment rights, appellant testified that, apart from going to the hospital on separate occasions for a weight lifting-related muscle pull and an injured knuckle, nothing unusual happened at the group home between June 10 and June 16, 2010, prior to the police arriving. He denied ever hitting the victim or entering the victim’s room. He testified he told the deputy he never hit the victim. He denied any involvement in the stolen fan incident or calling the victim a “snitch.” He denied leaving his room at night other than to go to the kitchen or bathroom. He maintained he injured his knuckle when he “socked” a door.
During trial, Butler overheard a conversation between Eric and Jacob in the hallway. Eric said he had just pleaded guilty in court and had told appellant he had done so. He said appellant’s reaction was to ask Eric to say that appellant had nothing to do with it, since Eric had “already pleaded guilty.” Butler heard Eric telling Jacob that appellant needed to “own up” too. When questioned, Eric confirmed telling Jacob about hitting the victim but denied saying appellant needed to “step up” as well. Jacob testified that although Eric had admitted to hitting the victim, he had not said anything about appellant. Counsel for the parties stipulated that, if called as a witness, appellant would deny being told by Eric he needed to own up to his part in the incident.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examining the record, appellant’s appointed counsel submitted a brief on appellant’s behalf pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues. Counsel requested that this court independently review the entire record on appeal in this case. On November 19, 2010, and on April 6, 2011, counsel advised his client of the nature of his opening brief, that he would serve a copy of such brief upon appellant, and that appellant may file a supplemental opening brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. Counsel further advised his client he would remain available to brief issues as requested by the court and that appellant may file a request for this court to relieve him as counsel in this appeal. In a declaration attached to the opening brief, counsel stated that he had sent appellant a full and complete copy of the record on appeal to aid appellant in preparing a supplemental brief. A proof of service attached to the opening brief indicates counsel served appellant with a copy of the opening brief on April 9, 2011. Thirty days have passed since the filing of the opening brief, and appellant has not filed any supplemental brief or letter to the court raising any issues or argument.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)
DISPOSITION
The findings and order are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BIGELOW, P. J.RUBIN, J.