From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re M.L.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 13, 2020
F079735 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2020)

Opinion

F079735

01-13-2020

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

Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JW139286)

OPINION

THE COURT APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Lorna H. Brumfield, Judge. Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for minor M.L. asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Minor was advised of his 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 minor. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor, we affirm the juvenile court's findings and orders.

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

Minor was Brenda's boyfriend. They dated for five or six months. On December 14, 2018, Brenda spoke to the dean of students and the school district's police officer at her high school. She showed them a bruise on her left arm that had been there for about one month. Brenda was reluctant to tell the officer what had happened between her and minor. The officer took photographs of her bruise, which was still visible but faint. According to Brenda, the bruise occurred when minor was "play fighting" with her. He hit her about four times with his fist on the same place on her arm. The bruise was originally dark purple and green, and it was still visible a month later. After minor hit Brenda, she pushed him. She told him to stop hitting her and he stopped. When Brenda later told minor about her bruise, minor said "in a playful way" that it was because she was misbehaving. Brenda lied to her brother about the bruise because she knew he would "do something" if he knew minor had punched her. She did not want to testify at the hearing because she did not want minor to get in trouble. She said he did not mean to hit her.

Minor and Brenda were both 14 years old at the time of the offense.

Two of minor's schoolmates testified they spent a lot of time with minor and had seen him with Brenda. Minor and Brenda were always around other people. The schoolmates had never seen minor hit or act aggressively toward Brenda. But both schoolmates admitted they were not always with minor and Brenda. --------

On February 28, 2019, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that minor had committed battery upon Brenda, a person with whom he was in a dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1), a misdemeanor).

At the hearing on June 4, 2019, the juvenile court found the allegation true, stating:

"There is no question there was a dating relationship. My concern is this: The victim lied to her brother because something—she said something like she thought he would do something so she was—she didn't want to say my boyfriend hit me. We were just goofing around. It is no big deal. She made a complete[ly] different story and was reluctant to tell anybody[,] but today on the stand she said he hit her four times in the same place in the arm leaving a bruise that lasted a month.

"A month is a long time for a bruise to last for something he—just goofing around. Clearly a battery took place here. He hit her four times and she pushed him away. I will find the charge true beyond a reasonable doubt. Credibility of the witnesses is very significant to me in this case as well as the exhibits."

In the probation officer's June 6, 2019 report, the officer reported that minor denied committing the battery or harming Brenda and stated he believed she might have been upset because he had broken up with her. Minor's parents were highly supportive of him.

On July 2, 2019, the juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court, placed him on probation with certain terms not to exceed his 21st birthday, and ordered him to complete domestic violence counseling and 100 hours in the juvenile court work program.

On July 8, 2019, minor filed a notice of appeal.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.

DISPOSITION

The findings and orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.


Summaries of

In re M.L.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 13, 2020
F079735 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2020)
Case details for

In re M.L.

Case Details

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

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 13, 2020

Citations

F079735 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2020)