Filed 4/12/18 In re K.B. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR


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




A152014

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. JV028395)



Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true substantive offense allegations that appellant, K.B., a minor committed attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211) and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). At the dispositional hearing, the court adjudged K.B. to be a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placed him on probation, subject to various conditions, in his mother’s home.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2017, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), petition was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleging that appellant committed felony violations of robbery (count 1; Pen. Code, § 211) and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (count 2; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)).
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on June 13, 2017 in San Francisco Superior Court, where Jane Doe testified that, on April 12, 2017, she went to the library in Glen Park, San Francisco to borrow a book. On her way home, Ms. Doe saw a group of young people walking up the sidewalk towards her and so she moved out of the way. When the group of kids reached her, one of the youths punched her in the face and she fell to the ground. The youth who punched Ms. Doe made some sexually suggestive hand gestures towards her, and she said, “ ‘You can’t do this to me, I’m pregnant’ ” several times. The same minor then reached into Doe’s pocket and took her key. Doe shouted out for help, asked neighbors to call 911, and grabbed a minor female who was with the group and asked her for help as well.
The minor who took the key returned and asked where Doe’s Toyota was, to which she replied that she did not have a Toyota. The minor female said that they thought Doe did have a Toyota, and then the minor male gave Doe her key back, and the group of kids ran away.
Doe testified that the minor depicted in Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 was the boy who punched her and took her key. Doe was able to identify him mostly based upon the sweatshirt he was wearing, which she recalled noticing when he was gesturing with his hands above her. Officer Marcus Wells responded to a call and detained a group of juveniles who matched the description reported in the call, three males and one female. Another officer on patrol with Officer Wells talked with Doe, while a third officer spoke with an individual, who roughly fit the description of the assailant. One of the officers then took Doe to a show-up where she identified appellant as the minor male who had punched her and taken her key; Doe also identified the detained girl as the minor female who was present during the attack.
Doe testified that she would not recognize the minor female that she identified if she saw her again. Doe identified appellant in court as the minor who had punched her, but testified that she would not recognize him if she saw him on the street. Upon follow-up questioning by the court, Doe testified that she was able to recognize appellant in court, even though he was not wearing the same clothes, based upon his hairstyle, skin color, and the shape of his face.
As a result of the assault, Doe suffered pain and bruising to her face, arm and hip. The pain to her face was significant and accompanied by swelling and some bleeding; the pain to her arm and right hip was minor. Doe took a few days off from work because her mouth was swollen and she could only drink through a straw.
The juvenile court sustained the lesser-included charge of attempted robbery as to count 1 (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211) and count two as charged (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and transferred the matter out to Alameda County, based on the residence of appellant’s mother, for disposition.
Alameda County accepted transfer on June 27, 2017. A dispositional hearing was held on July 26, 2017, where appellant was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation, subject to various conditions, in his mother’s home.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on July 28, 2017.
II. DISCUSSION
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s true finding that minor committed an assault likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4), count 3); and (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the victim’s identification.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


 




_________________________
REARDON, J.


We concur:


_________________________
STREETER, ACTING P. J.


_________________________
SCHULMAN, J.*






















*Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
A152014 In re K.B.