In re Michael B.
Filed 10/5/07 In re Michael B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MICHAEL B, a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL B., Defendant and Appellant. | E042930 (Super.Ct.No. SWJ006266) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark Ashton Cope, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In a new petition filed by the District Attorney of Riverside County, minor was charged with one count of rape (Pen. Code 261, subd. (a)(2)),[1]and one count of violating section 261.5, subdivision (b) of unlawful sexual intercourse with Jane Doe, a person not more than three years different in age than him.
On March 1, 2007, following a contested disposition hearing, both allegations were found to be true. Care, control and custody of the minor was placed with the probation department and minor was ordered released to the custody of himself. He was further ordered committed to the juvenile work program for a period of 24 to 48 days.
Statement of facts
On January 3, 2006, then 15-year-old B.N. had been the 17-year-old defendants girlfriend for two to three weeks. After school that day, defendant offered to take B.N. home. On the way to her house, defendant parked near a dirt field. Defendant persuaded B.N. to get into the back seat with him and eventually had intercouse with her against her will.
Defendant testified that the sex was consensual.
Defendant 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 undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
