Opinion
C077549
07-28-2015
In re B.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.M., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JV136187)
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97 (Kevin S.). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende and Kevin S., we affirm the judgment.
A petition filed May 28, 2014, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that the minor used willful and unlawful force and violence resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d). The allegations arose from a family dispute during which the 15-year-old minor got into a physical altercation with his stepbrother.
As part of a negotiated resolution, the minor admitted to committing violence against his stepbrother, resulting in a misdemeanor violation of section 243, subdivision (b). The juvenile court found the minor unsuitable for deferred entry of judgment and adjudged him to be a ward of the court. The juvenile court ordered 15 days of home supervision, four days of juvenile work project, and 28 hours of community service work. The minor was also ordered to pay $25 in mandatory restitution.
The minor appealed. We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 426; Kevin S., supra, 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from the minor.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MURRAY, J. We concur: NICHOLSON, Acting P. J. HOCH, J.