Opinion
B240720
10-04-2012
In re Y. P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Y.P., Defendant and Appellant.
Stephen Borgo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. GJ29535)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert Leventer, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Stephen Borgo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On the morning of January 25, 2012, appellant, age 17, attacked and beat her mother when her mother insisted that she get up and go to school. The District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging one count of misdemeanor assault and battery. (Pen. Code, § 242.) Appellant denied the allegation.
The adjudication commenced on April 11, 2012. The officer who had responded to appellant's mother's call to police testified that when he arrived at the residence appellant's mother told him appellant had grabbed her by the throat and punched her. However, contrary to her earlier representation to police, appellant's mother testified appellant grabbed her only by the shirt and did not punch her, but instead hit her accidentally with a flailing arm.
At the close of the petitioner's evidence, appellant moved to dismiss the case on the ground of insufficient evidence. The motion was denied.
Appellant then testified she struck her mother only accidentally.
The court sustained the petition and, over the petitioner's objection, placed appellant on six months home probation. (Welf & Inst. Code, § 725, subd. (a).) Appellant timely appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, appellant's counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues, and asking this court to independently review the record. On August 1, 2012, we advised appellant she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-280; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY, J. We concur:
MALLANO, P. J.
ROTHSCHILD, J.