Opinion
E081210
10-17-2023
In re A.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. A.D., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. J286433 Tony Raphael, Judge. Affirmed.
Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MENETREZ, J.
Andrew D. appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional order adjudging him a ward of the court and placing him at home on probation. We appointed counsel to represent Andrew on appeal, and counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2020, the People filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that on August 23, 2020, 15-year-old Andrew committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242). (Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.)
In January 2021, after Andrew's counsel declared a doubt as to whether Andrew was competent to stand trial, the court suspended the proceedings and appointed Dr. Gene N. Berg to evaluate Andrew's competency. Dr. Berg diagnosed Andrew with autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit disorder and concluded that Andrew was incompetent to stand trial and needed at least three months of remediation services to assist him in gaining competence. The parties stipulated to Dr. Berg's testimony, and the court found Andrew incompetent to stand trial and ordered him to participate in remediation services.
On October 6, 2021, the People filed a subsequent petition alleging that on October 4, 2021, Andrew committed attempted second degree robbery (§§ 211, 664), misdemeanor battery of a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (b)), resisting an executive officer (§ 69), and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)). At the detention hearing on the subsequent petition, the parties stipulated to Dr. Berg's prior psychological evaluation, and the court ordered that the proceedings remain suspended.
In August 2022, the court found Andrew competent to proceed to trial and reinstated the proceedings.
The contested jurisdictional hearing took place on November 30, 2022, and January 25, 2023. The court granted the People's motion to dismiss all of the counts against Andrew except the robbery and assault counts from the initial petition. The People presented the following evidence on the remaining two counts.
On the evening of August 23, 2020, Amaya M. was working behind the counter at the convenience store owned by her father, A.F. At approximately 7:00 p.m., Andrew entered the store and tried to purchase a vape pen. When Amaya asked him for his identification, he grabbed a box of vape pens from the counter and ran out of the store. Amaya followed Andrew outside and told A.F., who was sitting in his car in the parking lot, what had happened. A.F. followed Andrew to an empty field across the street, got out of his car, and gave chase. Andrew reached a fence at the end of the field, dropped the box of vape pens, and tried unsuccessfully to jump the fence. When A.F. told Andrew that the police were coming, Andrew punched A.F. twice in the face with a closed fist, causing A.F. to fall to the ground. Andrew continued to punch A.F., hitting him "[a]t least four or five times" before a passerby intervened. As the passerby tried to pull Andrew off A.F., Andrew punched the passerby in the lip but then apologized, saying he had anger issues.
A.F. testified that he passed out while Andrew was hitting him and that he felt dizzy and confused when he regained consciousness. A.F. sustained cuts to his lip, the left side of his head, and his right arm and hand. The retail value of a vape pen is $15, and a box normally contains 20 pens. It was unknown how many pens were in the box Andrew took.
At the close of evidence, the court ruled that it would also consider a lesser included offense for each count-petty theft (§ 484) for the robbery count and simple assault (§ 240) for the aggravated assault count. The court found that Andrew had committed misdemeanor petty theft and felony assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury.
At the uncontested dispositional hearing in April 2023, the court declared Andrew a ward of the court and placed him at home on probation. The court also adopted and ordered the recommended probation terms, which included a term that Andrew serve 98 days in custody with 98 days credit for time served.
DISCUSSION
Andrew's appellate counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record. (See In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 117-119 [Wende procedure applies in the juvenile delinquency context to a minor's first appeal as of right].) We advised Andrew that he had 30 days to file any personal supplemental brief, and we received no response.
We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Andrew. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Accordingly, we affirm the dispositional order.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RAMIREZ P. J., CODRINGTON J.