Antonio E.
On appeal, appellant contends a portion of the amount of victim restitution ordered—$261,236.57—is not supported by substantial evidence.[3] We affirm.
Filed 7/23/13 In re Antonio E. 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
In re ANTONIO E., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
ANTONIO
E.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F066568
(Super.
Ct. No. JL003699)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. David W. Moranda, Judge.
Kristen
Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of
the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Antonio E., appellant, was charged in a petition pursuant
to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 with a misdemeanor count of
resisting arrest (Pen Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). After a contested
2012, the juvenile court found the allegation to be true beyond a reasonable
doubt.
At the disposition hearing on
January 9, 2013, the juvenile court placed appellant on probation for six
months upon various terms and conditions including that he complete 24 hours of
a juvenile work program or other qualifying community service. Appellate
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (
FACTS
On December
4, 2011, Officer Jose Torres was assisting Officer Haywood as Haywood was
taking appellant’s brother into custody after an incident that occurred in
front of the Atwater Police Department.
Appellant charged the officers.
Torres told appellant to stop and get back. Haywood had been injured and there was a
safety issue. When appellant did not
stay back, Torres “snap kicked†him.
Appellant shifted backward and Torres told him he was under arrest.
Torres
instructed appellant to place his hands behind his back several times, but
appellant did not comply. Another female
family member began to interfere, but Torres told her to back off. Torres had no assistance arresting appellant
because Haywood and another officer were still dealing with appellant’s
brother. Appellant did not go to the
ground until Torres employed his taser to appellant’s back.
Appellant
testified that he saw his brother get punched in the face by Haywood, he walked
over, and asked what was going on.
Torres then snap kicked appellant.
Appellant said he backed away and placed his hands over his head. Torres grabbed appellant’s hands, placed them
behind appellant’s back, and told appellant he was under arrest. According to appellant, Torres did not give
him a chance to get back before tasing him.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Appellant’s
appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening
brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests
this court to review the record independently.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The
opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating
that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on March 18, 2013, we invited
appellant to submit additional briefing.
To date, he has not done so.
After
independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably
arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is
affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and
Detjen, J.
