Opinion
H050198
08-23-2023
In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.P., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 21JV45335AB)
GREENWOOD, P. J.
The minor J.P. admitted allegations in two juvenile wardship petitions charging him with acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; two instances of inflicting corporal injury on a person in a dating relationship; and misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court adjudged J.P. to be a ward of the court and committed him to the Enhanced Ranch Program for a period of six to eight months.
J.P. filed a timely notice of appeal from the juvenile court's order. We appointed counsel, who filed an opening brief stating the case and the facts but raising no specific issues. We notified J.P. of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days, and we received no response.
We have reviewed the entire record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly).) We conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal, and we will affirm the judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. Procedural Background
The prosecution filed an amended juvenile wardship petition (petition A) alleging two counts: count 1-assault with a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)); and count 2-infliction of corporal injury on a person in a dating relationship (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The prosecution also filed a juvenile wardship petition (petition B) alleging three counts: count 1-assault with a deadly weapon, a felony (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); count 2-assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)); and count 3-infliction of corporal injury on a person in a dating relationship (§ 273.5, subd. (a)).
Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In a negotiated disposition, J.P. admitted the allegations set forth in counts 1 and 2 of petition A, and in counts 2 and 3 of petition B. The juvenile court sustained the allegation in count 1 of petition A as a misdemeanor and sustained the remaining allegations as felonies. The court dismissed count 1 of petition B in accord with the negotiated disposition.
At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court adjudged J.P. to be a ward of the court. The court committed him to the Enhanced Ranch Program for a period of six to eight months and imposed various conditions of probation.
J.P. timely appealed.
B. Facts of the Offenses
The probation reports set forth the following facts: In September 2021, J.P., who was 17 years old, got into an argument with his girlfriend at her apartment. Later that day, while preparing to leave the apartment, J.P. pushed his girlfriend to the ground, knocked over a television, and shot her seven times with an airsoft pellet gun. She was shot in the head, stomach, arm, and wrist. She then called the police. The police recovered an airsoft pellet gun and saw bruises on the girlfriend's arm and stomach as well as open wounds on her arm and wrist.
In March 2022, J.P. and his girlfriend were living together, in violation of a protective order against J.P. One night around 10:30 p.m., the girlfriend was returning home when she saw J.P. hiding behind a vehicle waiting for her to return. When the girlfriend tried to run, J.P. grabbed her by the hair and pulled her to the ground. He then picked up her phone, struck her in the face with it, and ordered her into the house, where they argued for some time. The next morning, the girlfriend was sleeping when J.P. began punching her repeatedly around the ribs, arms, and thigh area. He pushed her face into the couch, making it hard for her to breathe or speak. The assault continued for about five minutes until he was interrupted by a phone call and the girlfriend escaped. Later that day, she went to the hospital for her injuries. When police arrived, they observed swelling and bruising on her nose, a black eye, and bruises around her arm and ribcage area.
II. Discussion
We have reviewed the entire record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106. We find no arguable issue on appeal, and we conclude appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. (Wende, at p. 441.)
For the reasons above, we will affirm the judgment.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Grover, J., Lie, J.