Filed 5/17/17 In re Joseph M. CA4/3




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH M.,

Defendant and Appellant.


G054306

(Super. Ct. No. 16DL0158)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
The juvenile court found Joseph M. (born July 1998) committed misdemeanor domestic violence battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e) (1) [count 1]) and misdemeanor battery (§ 242 [count 2]) and continued him as a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) on probation subject to various terms and conditions, including a batterer treatment program. Joseph appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Joseph did not file a supplemental brief. Our review of the record discloses no arguable issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 28, 2016, the Orange County District Attorney (petitioner) filed a subsequent petition alleging Joseph, a ward of the court, committed the misdemeanor offenses described above. At the jurisdiction hearing in October 2016, Alicia M. testified Joseph was her adopted son. He had a girlfriend named Chelsea P. On November 15, 2015, Chelsea came over to the home and was very upset. Joseph and she argued. Joseph said “Go” in Spanish and pushed Chelsea out of the door because he did want to fight with her. Alicia intervened and told Chelsea she would drive her home. Alicia spoke to a defense investigator several months after the incident and denied Joseph hit anyone on this occasion.
A Fullerton police detective testified he interviewed Joseph, who stated Chelsea wanted to leave after an argument, walked out the door, and when Joseph ran after her she screamed. The detective also interviewed Alicia, a recording of which was played in court. Alicia testified she heard screaming and when she entered the room she saw Joseph slap Chelsea approximately three times on the body. Alicia said “don’t hit her,” and Joseph came at Alicia, hit her on the head, and said “[d]on’t be butting in” because it was his life. He threatened Alicia with harm if she took Chelsea home.
The court denied Joseph’s motion to dismiss after the petitioner rested its case. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 701.1 [the court shall order the petition dismissed if the court weighs the evidence and finds the minor is not a person described by section 602].) Joseph rested without presenting any evidence, and the court sustained the allegations. The court proceeded immediately to disposition. The court continued Joseph’s wardship and probation on previously imposed terms and conditions, imposed a juvenile hall commitment of 210 days with credit for time served, and ordered Joseph to participate in a 52- or 26-week batterer’s treatment program, depending on whether he attended school to obtain his high school diploma. The court also issued a no contact protective order as to Chelsea, and a peaceful contact protective order as to Alicia. The court imposed a $50 restitution fine (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (b)(2) [court shall impose a restitution fine not exceeding $100 for one or more misdemeanors regardless of minor’s ability to pay]). The court directed the probation department to assist Joseph to enroll in school.
II
DISCUSSION
Following Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. Our review of the entire record does not show the existence of an arguable issue. Joseph has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 111 [appellate court must address issues raised personally by appellant in a Wende proceeding]), nor has he requested to have appellate counsel relieved. Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.

III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



ARONSON, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:



FYBEL, J.



IKOLA, J.