Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. YJ34130, Wayne C. Denton, Juvenile Court Referee.
Bahar Law Office and Sarvenaz Bahar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GRIMES, J.
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed February 9, 2010, charging appellant T.T., a minor as of the date of the filing, with one misdemeanor count: battery on a school employee while the employee was engaged in the performance of his or her duties. (Pen. Code, § 243.6.) T.T. timely appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order, sustaining the petition against him and placing him on six months of probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a).
We appointed appellate counsel to represent T.T. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were raised. The brief included a declaration from counsel that she reviewed the record and sent a letter to T.T. explaining her evaluation of the record. She further declared she advised T.T. of his right, under Wende, to submit a supplemental brief within 30 days, identifying issues for appeal. T.T. did not file any supplemental brief with the court.
The disposition hearing took place over two days, i.e., June 1 and August 5, 2010. The court heard testimony from T.T.; Jose Gonzalez, a teacher at Hawthorne Academy; and Hawthorne Police Department Officer Michael Matson. The record supports the adjudication of the petition rendered by the juvenile court. On December 7, 2009, T.T. was a student at Hawthorne Academy. Mr. Gonzalez was a teacher at the school, a position he had held for five years. On that date, T.T. was in Mr. Gonzalez’s class, along with two other students who were seated at individual desks doing their classwork. It was undisputed Hawthorne Academy had a policy of requiring all students to turn in their cell phones when they arrived on campus. However, T.T. had his phone with him in class that day because the dean had apparently told him he could hang on to it, as he sometimes allowed students to do.
It was undisputed that T.T. was listening to music on his cell phone, using the speakers of the computer at his desk, and that Mr. Gonzalez told him to turn the phone off. At the first request, T.T. complied, but then after a few minutes, he turned the music back on. T.T. apparently did so because the other students were using their phones in class as well. The two versions of the story diverge at that point.
Mr. Gonzalez testified that he repeatedly told T.T. to turn off the cell phone and give it to him, but T.T. simply ignored him. Mr. Gonzalez testified he told T.T. he would have to leave the classroom if he would not comply and do his schoolwork. Mr. Gonzalez tried to lift T.T. out of the desk chair. He said T.T. then threw a punch at him, which he sought to avoid by ducking, and T.T.’s hand just grazed him, resulting in scratches on his neck. Mr. Gonzalez then maneuvered behind T.T. and put him in a “bear hug” and asked the other students to call the school’s “behavior staff” to come to the classroom. The two struggled for several minutes, with Mr. Gonzalez attempting to talk to T.T. and avoid escalation of the situation. They eventually fell to the floor. The incident ended when the other school staff members arrived.
T.T. testified that Mr. Gonzalez acted as the instigator, attempting to grab his phone away from him and it dropped to the ground. He testified Mr. Gonzalez grabbed him and started choking him, and T.T. eventually dropped to his knees. On cross-examination, T.T. stated he started to play music on his cell phone after being told not to, just “because.” He said that Mr. Gonzalez did not like him, gave him bad grades, and had just decided to pick on him that day.
The Hawthorne Police Department was contacted and Officer Matson arrived to investigate. Officer Matson testified and confirmed that he viewed scratch marks on Mr. Gonzalez’s neck and that they appeared fresh. Officer Matson interviewed Mr. Gonzalez about the incident. On cross-examination, he admitted that his report did not include some of the detailed facts to which Mr. Gonzalez testified at the hearing, for instance his effort to lift T.T. out of the chair at the outset.
The court viewed a photograph of the scratches on Mr. Gonzalez’s neck. The court received the probation report into evidence without objection. In rendering its decision, the juvenile court expressly stated that it did not find T.T.’s version of the incident credible. (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1373 [juvenile court “sole judge of the credibility of witnesses”].)
The juvenile court sustained the petition, but did not declare T.T. a ward of the court. The court placed T.T. on six months of probation, subject to various terms and conditions, including the requirement to perform community service, and released T.T. to the custody of his mother.
We have examined the entire record, consisting of one volume of a clerk’s transcript and one volume of a reporter’s transcript, and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order adjudicating the petition below.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s adjudication order of August 5, 2010, is affirmed.
We note for the record that the August 5, 2010 order was corrected nunc pro tunc by order dated April 27, 2011, to accurately reflect that the charge sustained against T.T. was a misdemeanor and not a felony, as erroneously stated in the original order. On May 23, 2011, we granted T.T.’s motion to augment to include the April 27, 2011 order as part of the appellate record.
WE CONCUR: BIGELOW, P. J.FLIER, J.