Filed 1/24/18 In re M.M. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



In re M.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068667

(Super.Ct.No. J268920)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Corey G. Lee, Judge. Affirmed.
Kevin J. Lindsley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, M.M., was declared a ward of the juvenile court and placed on formal probation, following her admission that she committed a battery on school grounds. (Pen. Code, § 243.2, subd. (a)(1).) We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2016, M.M., then age 14, after being advised of her Miranda rights, told a school police officer that she confronted the victim over comments the victim made about her on Facebook. M.M. admitted she pushed the victim, but denied kicking or hitting the victim. M.M. was not remorseful and did not offer the victim an apology. In October 2016, M.M. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression.
On December 27, 2016, a wardship petition was filed alleging M.M. committed one count of battery on school grounds. (Pen. Code, § 243.2, subd. (a)(1); Welf & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a).) On January 30, 2017, M.M. admitted the allegation.
On May 12, 2017, M.M. moved to withdraw her admission on the grounds she had discovered previously undisclosed new evidence, namely, a school administrator’s decision not to expel M.M. based on the administrator’s conclusion that M.M.’s battery against the victim was a manifestation of M.M.’s “disability.” M.M. alleged that the administrator left a voice mail message for M.M.’s mother on October 5, 2016. Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court denied M.M.’s motion to withdraw her admission.
At a contested dispositional hearing on June 23, 2017, M.M. was declared a ward of the juvenile court and was placed on formal probation with various conditions. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
M.M.’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 and as approved in Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284. M.M. has not responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief.
Appellate counsel has identified the following issue which might arguably support the appeal (Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744): “Did the juvenile court err in denying [M.M.’s] motion to withdraw her admission?” We have considered appellate counsel’s brief and have independently reviewed the entire record for all potential errors (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119), and find no arguable error, including the potential error raised by appellate counsel.
“Ignorance or any other factor that prevents a knowing and intelligent decision to enter a plea [citation] would . . . be good cause to allow a minor to withdraw an admission if supported with clear and convincing evidence, a determination within the juvenile court’s informed discretion after due consideration of the relevant evidence.” (In re Matthew N. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1420, italics omitted.) Thus, newly discovered evidence that would have given the defendant or ward substantial additional bargaining power may be grounds for withdrawing the plea or admission. (See People v. Ramirez (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1506-1508.) An order denying a motion to withdraw a plea or an admission is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 1506.)
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying M.M.’s motion to withdraw her admission. The administrator’s decision not to expel M.M. due to her “disability” did not make M.M.’s admission of the battery allegation any less knowing or intelligent, and it would not have given M.M. any additional bargaining power in dealing with the allegation. Indeed, the decision not to expel M.M. had nothing to do with the evidence that M.M. committed the battery. The victim and several other witnesses would have testified that M.M. pushed the victim down.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS
J.


We concur:

McKINSTER
Acting P. J.

MILLER
J.