Filed 8/4/26 In re C.M. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re C.M., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law. A175347
THE PEOPLE, (Alameda County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. JV-039042-01)
v.
C.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant C.M. appeals following a dispositional order declaring her a
ward of the court and placing her on probation. C.M.’s counsel asks this
court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable
issues that require briefing. Because counsel did not clearly indicate whether
C.M. was adequately advised of her right to file a supplemental brief, this
court issued a subsequent order informing C.M. of her right. C.M. has not
filed a supplemental brief.
After an independent review of the record, we find no meritorious
issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office filed a petition pursuant
to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that C.M. committed a
misdemeanor battery. The petition arose from an incident in which C.M.
physically assaulted an individual in their shared residence. The victim
reported to police that three girls, including her 17-year-old housemate, C.M.,
had threatened to assault her the prior day and, the following day, entered
her bedroom and punched her in the face and head multiple times.
During the contested jurisdictional hearing, C.M. and the victim
recounted different versions of the assault. The victim testified she was hit
with closed fists by two girls in her bedroom, dragged to the hallway where
C.M. was waiting, and C.M. then began choking her until C.M.’s brother
arrived and separated them. However, C.M. denied participating in the
victim’s assault. C.M. stated she heard a commotion in the hallway, saw her
friend hitting the victim, thought “nothing” as she walked by, but called for
help; her brother then separated the girls. C.M.’s brother attested to C.M.’s
version of events.
During cross-examination, defense counsel sought to highlight an
inconsistency in the victim’s testimony, noting she had previously stated that
C.M. was “choking [her] the whole time.” Defense counsel was unable to
obtain a direct answer from the victim, and eventually moved on. At several
other points during the victim’s cross-examination, defense counsel moved to
strike the answers as nonresponsive.
After the victim’s testimony, the interpreters requested to speak with
the court and counsel in the hallway. One interpreter stated that although
the victim’s Spanish was good, she believed the victim’s first language was an
indigenous one. The interpreter further stated that “people who speak
2
indigenous languages do not think linearly, so that could explain her
difficulty answering questions.”
C.M. moved for a mistrial, arguing that the interpreters’ statements
attempted to influence the court’s understanding of the victim’s testimony.
The court determined that the interpreters’ statements were made in
response to the court and counsel’s “frustration” to explain the victim’s
“difficulty in responding” to questions. The court stated that it was not
influenced by these statements, took the testimony at face value, and denied
the motion for a mistrial.
The court found the allegations of battery to be true beyond a
reasonable doubt. The court noted it did not find C.M.’s testimony credible,
observing that C.M.’s friends were let into the house, the video conveniently
ended when C.M. appeared, and it was not credible that C.M. and her friends
would not have discussed the incident when they left to eat afterwards.
At the subsequent dispositional hearing, the court declared C.M. a
ward of the court and ordered in-home probation. That probation order
imposed various terms, including that C.M. must obey all laws, not remain
away from home overnight, attend school, not associate with anyone she
knew to use, deal, or possess illegal drugs, submit to chemical testing, write
an apology letter to the victim but otherwise have no contact with her, and
perform 20 hours of community service.
C.M. appealed following the dispositional order. (In re Shaun R. (2010)
188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1138 [“The juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are
not immediately appealable and the appeal is taken from the order made
after the disposition hearing.”].)
3
DISCUSSION
C.M.’s counsel filed a brief asking us to independently review the
record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. Wende procedures apply to a minor’s
appeal from the judgment in juvenile delinquency proceedings. (In re Kevin
S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 118–119.) C.M. was provided notice of her
right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
Having independently reviewed the record, we have found no
reasonably arguable appellate issue. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
124.) A motion for a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court. (People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 330.) A trial court
does not abuse its discretion when it denies a motion for a mistrial after it is
properly satisfied that no prejudice or injustice has resulted or will result
from the occurrences to which counsel objects. (People v. Dominquez (1981)
121 Cal.App.3d 481, 508.) Here, the court expressly acknowledged it was not
considering the interpreter’s comments when reaching its decision, and thus
the record does not reflect any prejudice or injustice resulting from the
interpreter’s comments.
Nor do we find any arguable issues in the disposition or terms of
probation. Because C.M. was placed in her home under her brother’s care,
the court properly did not set a maximum term of probation. (In re A.C.
(2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 592.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4
PETROU, J.
WE CONCUR:
FUJISAKI, Acting P. J.
RODRÍGUEZ, J.
A175347 / People v. C.M.
5