Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J37973
Siggins, J.
N.F. appeals a juvenile court order that continued him as a ward of the court on probation in his mother’s home after finding he committed assault and battery. Counsel has briefed no issues and asks that we review the record of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) N.F. has not filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record and affirm.
DISCUSSION
A petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that 16-year-old N.F. committed assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury upon a single victim. At the beginning of the contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court considered N.F.’s motion to suppress evidence, based on his claim that he was unlawfully detained. After hearing the testimony of three police officers involved in N.F.’s arrest, the court concluded the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him because N.F. and his companion were found very near the scene of the attack soon after it occurred; they resembled the description provided by one of the officers after he interviewed the eyewitnesses; they altered their pattern of travel when the police first observed them; and the orange shirt worn by one of the detainees matched a description provided by the eyewitnesses and was a unique article of clothing. The court denied the suppression motion.
The court then heard testimony regarding the allegations of the petition. The victim testified he had been drinking and went to McDonalds to “get something to eat, to sober... up a little bit.” As he left the restaurant, he became involved in a conversation with N.F.’s companion. The next thing the victim remembered, he woke up in the hospital with a swollen face, a headache, a sore mouth, and a broken tooth.
Two young teenagers testified they saw two or three men beating another man who was lying on the ground without moving or defending himself. Each assailant was involved, and was hitting and kicking the victim until they all ran away. These two eyewitnesses flagged down Vacaville Police Officer Chris Lechuga who advised the police dispatcher of the general description of the suspects that was provided by the two eyewitnesses. A few minutes later, after two suspects were detained by another police officer, the two eyewitnesses made a field identification of N.F. and his companion, based on their clothing and their height.
N.F. testified on his own behalf. He said the victim appeared to be drunk, and made threatening comments to N.F. and his friend when he approached them inside the McDonalds restaurant. N.F.’s friend said he thought the victim was someone he fought with before. After they went out to the parking lot, the victim hit N.F. and he hit back. When N.F.’s friend began to fight with the victim, N.F. claimed that he stood back and watched from a safe distance. He later intervened to stop the fight before he and his friend ran from the scene. N.F. denied that he or his friend ever kicked the victim.
The juvenile court found the allegations of the petition were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and sustained the petition. The court noted N.F.’s admission that he was at the scene and involved in the attack. The court found N.F.’s testimony regarding the details of the incident was not credible, and instead believed the two eyewitnesses. At the dispositional hearing, N.F. was continued as a ward of the court and placed in his mother’s custody, under the supervision of the probation officer. N.F. was placed on probation with conditions including, inter alia, that he serve 90 days in juvenile hall that was stayed pending successful completion of drug court; that he submit to drug and alcohol testing; that he observe a 6:00 p.m. curfew; and that he stay away from the friend he was with at the time of the attack and anyone designated in writing by his probation officer after discussion with N.F.’s mother. N.F. timely appealed.
In an earlier proceeding, N.F. was adjudged a ward of the court based on his admissions to second degree burglary and resisting an officer.
N.F. was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The motion to suppress was properly denied. Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding, and there was no error in the dispositional order. Appellate counsel advised N.F. of his right to file a supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of counsel’s opening brief, but no supplemental brief has been filed. Full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P.J., Pollak, J.