In re A.H.
Filed 10/4/13 In re A.H. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re A.H., A Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
B245679
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. JJ19710)
APPEAL from an
order of the Superior Court of
County, Charles R. Scarlett, Judge. Affirmed.
Adrian K.
Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance
for Respondent.
In
the underlying proceeding, the juvenile court sustained a petition charging
appellant A.H. with three counts of assault by means likely to produce great
bodily injury. Appellant’s
court-appointed counsel has filed an opening
brief raising no issues. Following
our independent examination of the entire record pursuant to
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende),
we conclude that no arguable issues exist, and affirm.
On September
20, 2012, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,
charging appellant, a minor born in 1994, with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),
attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 221, 664), and assault by means likely to
produce great bodily injury on Joshua C., Armando T., and Antonio V. (Pen.
Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Following
the presentation of evidence at the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court
dismissed the robbery and attempted robbery allegations, sustained the
allegations regarding the three counts of assault by means likely to produce
great bodily injury, and determined the offenses to be felonies. The juvenile court declared appellant to be a
ward of the court and ordered him placed in his home on probation. This appeal followed.
A.
Prosecution Evidence
On March 20,
2012, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Joshua C., Armando T., and Antonio V. left
their high school to go together to a hamburger stand. Armando and Antonio walked while Joshua rode
a bicycle. Armando had a dark blue
backpack. A group of six to ten black
youths approached them and asked whether they were in a gang. Joshua and his friends replied that they were
not gang members.
Joshua
testified that two members of the group tried to “pocket check†Armando, that
is, insert their hands in his pockets to search for valuables. Armando “smacked†one of them, and both
punched Armando in response. When Joshua
jumped off his bicycle to help Armando, two members of the group began to fight
with Joshua. Joshua soon saw someone
take his bicycle. He tried to recover
it, but was punched and kicked by several people.
After the
fight ended, the assailants walked away with Joshua’s bicycle. In an effort to recover the bicycle, he
followed them, but they challenged him to fight for it. Because Joshua’s wrist was badly injured, he
retreated. After the fight, he
discovered that his wrist was fractured.
After the
incident, Joshua identified appellant in a photographic lineup as present
during the fight. During the
adjudication hearing, he was unable to identify appellant as one of the persons
who hit him or the person who took his bicycle.
Joshua nonetheless testified that appellant was involved in the fight,
stating, “I am sure [appellant] was there.â€
He further stated, “There was no one standing to the side to view [the
fight]. They were all participating.â€
Armando
testified that one of the assailants “pocket checked†him. When Armando smacked his hand, the person
punched him, leaving him dazed. Other
members of the group joined in the fight, pushed Armando to the ground, and
kicked his face, chipping his tooth. Armando
was unable to identify appellant as one of his assailants.
Antonio
testified that after members of the group slapped Armando’s pocket, they
punched Armando, and then attacked Antonio.
As result of the fight, Antonio suffered an eye injury. He was unable to identify any of the
attackers.
Los Angeles
Police Department Officer Iris Romero testified that after the attack, Joshua
identified appellant as one of his attackers in a photographic lineup. Romero advised appellant of his
regarding the incident.
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] Appellant stated that on March 20,
2012, he left high school and walked to visit his grandmother. When he and his companions heard derogatory
remarks from three people across the street, a fight began. Appellant fought with someone wearing a blue
backpack. He denied taking anyone’s
bicycle.
B.
Defense
Evidence
Appellant
presented no evidence.
After an
examination of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening
brief raising no issues and requesting this court to review the record independently
pursuant to Wende. In addition, counsel advised appellant of his
right to submit by supplemental brief any contentions or argument he wished the
court to consider. Appellant has neither
presented a brief nor identified any potential issues. Our examination of the entire record
establishes that no arguable issues exist.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA,
J.
We
concur:
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
WILLHITE,
J.
