Opinion
F043001.
11-7-2003
In re S. M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S. M., Defendant and Appellant.
Elisabeth Wayland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Carlos A. Martinez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT
Appellant S. M. was charged with misdemeanor violations of Penal Code sections 243.6 (battery on school employee), 243.2 (battery on school grounds), and 148 (resisting arrest) resulting from a scuffle she had with a security guard and a sheriffs deputy on school grounds. Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found the allegations true and adjudged appellant a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602). The court correctly calculated the maximum period of confinement as one year four months, awarded no custody credit, imposed probation with home supervision, and other appropriate terms and conditions. This appeal followed. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court corrected the disposition order and awarded 3 days of custody credit.
FACTS
On September 19, 2002, about 8:05 a.m., appellant, who was not a student, confronted a student in the quad area of a junior high school. Campus security officer Rodriguez asked appellant why she was on campus, told her she needed a visitors pass, and escorted her to the vice-principals office. When the vice-principal asked appellant why she was on campus, appellant said she was not going to stay and walked out to the parking lot. Rodriguez asked sheriffs deputy Crespo, who was on campus as a member of the Safe Schools Unit, to help. Crespo directed appellant to return several times. She continued to walk away, so he approached her in the parking lot and placed his hands on her shoulders. Appellant began swinging her arms and attempted to pull away. When Rodriguez tried to help, one of appellants blows struck his right temple. Eventually, the two men placed appellant on the ground in handcuffs. Crespo suffered a cut and swollen lip in the fray.
Appellant testified she came to the school to speak with her sisters teacher and had a note from her grandmother permitting her to be on campus. She did not hear Crespo call her. He stopped her by pulling her hair and swinging her around. The two officers then threw her to the ground, kicked her, and kneed her in the back. In the process, she lost two braided hair extensions.
The trial court found the officers testimony more credible given the public arena of the struggle—the school parking lot as students were arriving for school.
DISCUSSION
Appellants appointed counsel filed an opening brief, which raised no issues and asked that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We invited appellant to file a personal brief; she has not done so.
Our independent review of the record failed to disclose any reasonably arguable issues. A reasonably arguable issue is one that has "a reasonable potential for success" and one that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, will result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App. 3d 106, 109.)
The judgment is affirmed. --------------- Notes: Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.