Opinion
C088640
09-06-2019
In re J.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.S., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JV139457)
This appeal 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, 99. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor, we affirm. We provide a brief description of the facts and procedural history. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On May 30, 2018, the Sacramento County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (subsequently amended) as to 14-year-old J. S., alleging one count of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b)(1); the victim was alleged to be 12-year-old A. D.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
At the contested jurisdiction hearing, the alleged victim and other witnesses testified; the minor did not. The evidence presented at the hearing showed that on a day falling between November 1, 2017, and December 4, 2017, the minor encountered the victim, whom he knew, after school and raped her in a secluded area. The parties stipulated that section 26 applied.
Penal Code section 26 provides in relevant part: "All persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes: . . . Children under the age of 14, in the absence of clear proof that at the time of committing the act charged against them, they knew its wrongfulness . . . ." Here, the minor was 14 at the time of the offense and counsel stipulated he understood its wrongfulness. --------
At the contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court followed the probation report's recommendation by imposing juvenile probation, committing him to serve 182 days in juvenile hall (with credit for time served), setting his maximum term of confinement at 10 years, releasing the minor to the care and custody of his parents, ordering him to complete juvenile sex offender counseling, and barring him from any contact with the victim.
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 436.) 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 elapsed, and we 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 dispositional orders are affirmed.
/s/_________
Butz, J. We concur: /s/_________
Robie, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Hoch, J.