From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re M.E.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Jan 13, 2012
E054316 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012)

Opinion

E054316 Super.Ct.No. RIJ120455

01-13-2012

In re M.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.E., Defendant and Appellant.

David L. Annicchiarico, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

David L. Annicchiarico, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant M.E. appeals from a contested jurisdictional hearing and the dispositional order of the juvenile court. As discussed below, we affirm the judgment.

On October 13, 2010, the People filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that M.E. committed: 1) felony rape by force or fear (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)); and 2) misdemeanor sex with a minor who is not more than three years older or younger (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (b)). On December 6, 2010, M.E. admitted the misdemeanor charge and the felony charge was dismissed. On March 21, 2011, the juvenile court declared M.E. a ward of the court, placed him on probation in the custody of his grandparents, and set as a condition of probation that he serve 59 days in juvenile hall, with credit for 59 days served.

On June 22, 2011, the People filed a second petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that M.E. committed: 1) robbery (Pen. Code, § 211); and 2) assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). M.E. denied the allegations. The contested jurisdictional hearing was held on July 26, 2011. M.E.'s counsel moved to exclude the testimony of witness and alleged robbery victim, Joey Perez, under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. The juvenile court denied the motion and the hearing proceeded. Perez testified that M.E. and another person stole a bicycle from him at knifepoint. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found the robbery allegation true but the assault allegation not true. At the disposition hearing held on August 11, 2011, the juvenile court ordered M.E. removed from his grandparents' custody and placed in a group home. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

M.E. appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered M.E. an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

MILLER

J.

CODRINGTON

J.


Summaries of

In re M.E.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Jan 13, 2012
E054316 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012)
Case details for

In re M.E.

Case Details

Full title:In re M.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Jan 13, 2012

Citations

E054316 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012)