In re C.T.
Filed 4/24/13 In re C.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 C.T., A Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
C.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
B242029
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. JJ19703)
APPEAL from an
order of the Superior Court of
County, Catherine J. Pratt, Commissioner. 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 C.T. with
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 May
22, 2012, a
petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, charging
appellant, a minor born in 1995, with assault with a deadly weapon on Ricardo
Lopez (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).
Accompanying the charge was an allegation that appellant inflicted great
bodily injury on Lopez
(Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).
Following the presentation of evidence at the adjudication hearing, the
juvenile court sustained the petition’s allegations regarding the offense
charged, found the special allegation to be true, and determined the offense to
be a felony. 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
The
prosecution’s key witnesses were Daniel T. and his uncle, Ricardo Lopez. Daniel testified that in May 2012, he lived
close to appellant, who often gave him “dirty looks†as he went to school. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on May 18, 2012, Daniel was on his bicycle, going to
visit Lopez. As Daniel neared Lopez’s
house, he passed appellant, who said, “Fuck you. I’m going to take your bike.†Daniel stopped and used his cell phone to
tell Lopez that appellant was “punking [him]†and “talking shit to [him].†Daniel asked Lopez to try to persuade
appellant to “stop telling [him] stuff.â€
Lopez arranged to meet Daniel near Lopez’s house.
Daniel further
testified that Lopez arrived and went to talk to appellant. Daniel, who stood some distance away, heard
Lopez ask why appellant was “messing with [his] nephew.†In response, appellant moved close to Lopez
and said, “Yes, I’m messing with him.â€
Appellant then pushed Lopez and punched his face and chest. According to Daniel, appellant appeared to
swing at Lopez with the side of his fist, leading with the thumb, but he saw no
weapon in appellant’s hand. After Lopez
swung once in response to appellant’s punches, Daniel said to Lopez, “Let’s
go. Let’s just go home.†As they left, Daniel saw blood dripping from
Lopez’s chin. Soon afterward, Daniel accompanied
Lopez to a hospital.
Lopez
testified as follows: After Daniel told
him by cell phone that appellant was bothering him, he met Daniel on the
street. Near Daniel was a female cousin
of appellant, who said, “[W]ho the fuck are you? You can’t do shit.†Lopez walked over to appellant, who was
standing near his own house. When Lopez
asked appellant why he was “bugging†Daniel, appellant replied, “Oh, what the
fuck are you going to do?†He then
pushed Lopez and punched his face.
Although Lopez saw no weapon in appellant’s hands, the punch created a
laceration between two and two-and-one-half inches in length on Lopez’s
chin. Appellant also punched Lopez’s
chest and shoulder, causing two one-inch lacerations. Lopez threw one punch in self-defense, but he
felt “shocked,†his chin hurt, and his injuries made him feel weak. When Daniel said, “Let’s go,†Lopez
agreed. Shortly afterward, Lopez went to
a hospital, where his lacerations were stitched.
South
Gate Police Department Officer Christopher Vajravukka testified that he
responded to the incident. After
Vajravukka advised appellant of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda), appellant agreed to speak with him.
According to Vajravukka, appellant said that when Lopez confronted him,
he removed a knife from his pocket, unfolded it, and held it in his fist while
he punched Lopez. Vajravukka further
testified that another officer recovered the knife, which had a two- to
three-inch blade.
B.
Defense
Evidence
Ana Mejia,
appellant’s aunt, testified that on May 18, 2012, she was inside her house when she
heard her daughter and a neighbor screaming outside. Upon leaving the house, Mejia saw appellant
and Lopez grappling with each other.
Lopez then threw a punch at appellant, who punched back in
self-defense. When Mejia yelled at the
combatants to halt, they stopped fighting, and appellant entered Mejia’s
house. As Lopez left the area with
Daniel, Lopez told Mejia’s daughter that he “was going to send a girlfriend to
beat her up and shoot her.â€
DISCUSSION
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 supplement 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.)
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA,
J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
WILLHITE, J.
note that when Vajravukka arrived at the scene, he initially interviewed
appellant in his house without advising him of his Miranda rights. According to
Vajravukka, appellant’s mother permitted him to enter the house to talk to
appellant. Vajravukka further testified
that appellant was not then detained, and that his freedom was not restricted
in any way. In view of this testimony,
the juvenile court found that no violation of appellant’s Miranda rights occurred during the initial interview. (In re
Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 527 [the procedural safeguards in
interrogation]; In re Danny E. (1981)
121 Cal.App.3d 44, 50 [Miranda
warnings were not required when police officers interviewed juvenile in his own
home, as “no objective indicia of arrest or detention were apparentâ€].)
