Filed 3/22/22 In re J.C. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugo J. Loza, Judge.

Jennifer A. Gibson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

J.C. (minor) appeals from a disposition order finding that he committed vandalism and granting him informal probation. On appeal, minor’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) We offered minor the opportunity to present his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following the Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On December 12, 2018, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)[1]) alleging minor committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1), and possession of a folding knife within school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); count 2). As to count 1, the petition alleged that minor was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)).

Minor was detained pending a hearing on the petition until January 3, 2019, when he was released on electronic monitoring. On January 29, 2019, minor was found to have violated the conditions of his release and was detained. On February 15, 2019, minor was again released on electronic monitoring. On March 26, 2019, the juvenile court found that minor had again violated the conditions of release. The court removed the minor from his home and temporarily placed him in the custody of the probation officer.

On April 12, 2019, the juvenile court dismissed the petition on the People’s motion. Minor was released from detention and ordered to “attend school, follow the rules[,] and stay out of trouble.”

On March 4, 2021, the Tulare County District Attorney filed an amended juvenile wardship petition (§ 602, subd. (a)) based on a new incident, alleging minor committed misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 1) and misdemeanor exhibiting a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 417; count 2).

On March 15, 2021, the juvenile court dismissed count 2 on the People’s motion and, after a contested hearing, found count 1 to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

On May 13, 2021, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing at which it declined to adjudge minor a ward of the court and instead placed him on informal probation for six months pursuant to section 725, subdivision (a).[2] The court also ordered minor to write an essay apologizing to his mother, to not associate with gang members, and to not acquire any new gang tattoos.

On May 28, 2021, minor filed a notice of appeal.

On January 4, 2022, minor’s counsel filed a brief identifying no issues on appeal and asking us to perform an independent review.

On the same date, the clerk of this court sent a letter to minor, informing him of his right to submit a letter stating any grounds on appeal.

To date, minor has submitted no letter identifying grounds on appeal.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

The December 12, 2018, Petition[3]

On November 26, 2018, minor’s cellular phone was used to order a pizza for delivery. Minor “helped get the victim to where he was robbed at gunpoint with another male subject.”

On December 7, 2018, minor was taken into custody from his junior high school. When he was taken into custody, he possessed a large pocket knife on his person.

The March 4, 2021, Petition

On May 8, 2019, minor’s mother, Silvia L., lived in Tulare County. Minor was at her residence and Silvia argued with him. She did not try to take his cellular phone and he did not throw his cellular phone. She observed minor punch a window in her home, breaking the glass. It cost less than $100 to fix the window.

DISCUSSION

Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–443.)

DISPOSITION

The dispositional order is affirmed. The juvenile court is directed to prepare an amended minute order reflecting that the juvenile court did not adjudge minor a ward of the court and forward a copy to the appropriate entities.

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

[2] Minor has requested that this court order the juvenile court to correct the minute order reflecting the disposition to conform to the juvenile court’s oral pronouncement of disposition. The People agree. The terms and conditions of probation form attached to the juvenile court’s May 13, 2021, findings and orders reflects that a wardship order was issued. The court’s oral pronouncement from the same date made clear that minor was not adjudged a ward of the court. When a discrepancy exists between a trial court’s oral pronouncement and the minute order, the oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) We may correct a clerical error in recording a lower court’s pronouncement at any time. (Ibid.; People v. Torres (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1085.) We therefore order the juvenile court to issue an amended minute order correctly reflecting the juvenile court did not adjudge minor a ward of the court.

[3] Minor did not admit the allegations of the petition and they were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The factual summary is drawn from the detention report prepared by the probation officer and relied upon by the juvenile court in making its initial detention determination.