In re B.A.
Filed 8/22/12 In re B.A. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 B.A., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
B.A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D060424
(Super. Ct.
No. J219756)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Margie G. Woods, Judge. Affirmed.
B.A., a
minor, was charged by petition with assault by means of force likely to produce
great bodily harm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1)
willful and unlawful use of force and violence resulting in the infliction of
serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2); and attempt to prevent
and dissuade a victim and witness of a crime from making a report
(§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 3).
B.A.
entered a settlement agreement under which she admitted to counts 1 and 3. The juvenile court found B.A. understood the
nature of the conduct alleged, the possible consequences of her admission, and
her admission was freely and voluntarily given.
The court sustained the petition on counts 1 and 3 and dismissed count
2. The court declared B.A. a ward under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placed her in the Youthful
Offender Unit (Y.O.U) program for a period not to exceed 480 days. The court, however, stayed commitment for
three months, placed B.A. on home supervision through the electronic
surveillance program, and ordered her not to use a computer for purposes other
than school work or social media such as Facebook.
A few weeks
later, B.A. violated the terms of her home confinement through unauthorized
computer use and extensive use of Facebook.
The court lifted the stay on the order to the Y.O.U program.
FACTS
B.A. and
B.G., both teenagers, were supposedly friends.
On May 3, 2011, B.A.
invited B.G. to her house to "hang out." B.A. led B.G. to the back yard, where B.A.'s
older sister waited. The sister began
videotaping the girls with her cell phone.
During the videotaping, B.A. hit B.G. in the face with a closed fist,
causing her to fall to the ground. She
momentarily lost consciousness and B.A. pulled her hair and kicked her in the
face. B.G. was taken to a hospital. She "had swelling around her eyes and
some blood coming from her nose and her left eyebrow." B.A. sent B.G. a text message telling her not
to contact the police.
B.A.
bragged about the incident by posting the videotape on Facebook. Further, B.A. had posted messages on Facebook
before the incident indicating she intended to assault someone. B.A. has history of
on two cases when the incident took place.
DISCUSSION
Appointed
appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings at
the juvenile court. Counsel presents no
argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as
mandated by
436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as
possible but not arguable issues: (1)
whether the court erred by not advising B.A. as to the maximum term of
confinement on count 2; (2) whether the court abused its discretion by lifting
the stay on the Y.O.U. commitment; and (3) whether the court erred by not
stating an award of custody credits in
the minute orders.
We gave
B.A. the opportunity to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded.
A review of
the record pursuant to People v. Wende,
possible issues to which counsel referred, has disclosed no reasonably arguable
appellate issues. Counsel adequately
represented B.A. on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL,
P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE,
J.
AARON,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Further statutory references are also to the Penal Code
unless otherwise specified.
