Filed 3/15/22 In re Beatriz C. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| In re BEATRIZ C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
|
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BEATRIZ C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
| D079519
(Super. Ct. No. J243140) |
APPEAL from a Judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ana L. España, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A petition under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 602 was filed in juvenile court alleging Beatriz C. (the Minor) committed murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). A request to find the Minor unfit for juvenile treatment under section 707 was also filed. The Minor admitted the allegations in the petition and the court denied the motion to transfer the case to adult court.
At a disposition hearing, the court heard evidence and argument. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court committed the Minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum period of 15 years to life.
The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Minor admitted that she and three other minors were involved in an altercation with the victim which resulted in the victim’s death.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing the Minor to DJJ instead of a less restrictive placement.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
