Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court No. J 218-887 of San Diego County, Carolyn M. Carietti, Judge, and Lawrence Kapiloff (Retired Judge of the San Diego S.Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.).
AARON, J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
L.G., a minor, appeals from the juvenile court's orders that he remain a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), and placing him in a camp program for a period not to exceed 270 days.
The juvenile court sustained the two-count petition alleging that L.G. violated Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1) and Penal Code section 140 (count 2).
II.
FACTS
On December 29, 2008, A.S., a minor, was assaulted by three individuals in the Ocean Beach area of San Diego. A woman who lived nearby witnessed the assault and screamed at the "young men" to stop. The three individuals eventually ran away, and the woman let A.S. use her telephone to call his mother.
A.S. testified that at the time of the assault, he recognized one of the three to be another minor, T.J. He further testified that he did not see the faces of the other two individuals who assaulted him. However, just after the assault, A.S. told the woman who witnessed the beating that he knew at least two of the individuals who had "jumped him." A.S. also told a police officer who interviewed him a few hours after the attack that he knew two of the people who assaulted him, and identified those two as T.J. and L.G. A.S. reiterated to another officer that he knew two of the three attackers, and identified T.J. and L.G. as the two individuals who had attacked him.
A.S. testified that he believed that the individuals assaulted him in December 2008 because he had previously testified against L.G. in another matter. A.S. admitted that he did not want to testify against L.G. in this case.
A.S. also told the female witness that he believed the assault occurred because he had previously testified against L.G.
III.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel 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. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the juvenile court erred in making true findings in light of L.G.'s denial of the charges, and the victim's testimony that he did not see L.G.'s face when he was attacked and did not know whether L.G. was one of his attackers; (2) whether the juvenile court properly considered the evidence; and (3) whether the juvenile court erred in considering L.G.'s prior juvenile adjudication as a factor weighing against the granting of probation.
We granted L.G. permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. L.G. has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. HUFFMAN, J.