In re David T.
Filed 7/25/13 In re David T. 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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 DAVID T., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DAVID. T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D063280
(Super. Ct.
No. J232499)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Carlos Armour, Judge.
Affirmed.
Reed Webb,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David T.
admitted count 1 in the wardship petition
that alleged: "On or about November
14, 2012, [David T.] did unlawfully commit an assault upon Sedryc
Dees‑Mueller with a deadly weapon and instrument, in violation of [Penal
Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1)], a felony." Count 2 and all attendant allegations were
dismissed. He was declared a ward of the
court under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and placed on
probation subject to a commitment to Breaking Cycles for a period not to exceed
365 days.
David T.
appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Sedryc
Dees-Mueller was seriously injured in a gang fight when stabbed with a
knife. David T. initially disclosed to a
probation officer and in a letter to the court that he was present at the fight
as a member of one of the gangs, but did not personally stab Mr. Dees‑Mueller. However, in open court after extensive
admonitions by the trial judge, he admitted he stabbed Mr. Dees‑Mueller.
DISCUSSION
Appointed
appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal,
but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738. Counsel
identifies as possible, but not arguable, an issue of "whether the court
could proceed with a minor's admission when he denies guilt, both to the
probation officer and in a letter addressed to the court, saying that he takes
responsibility for the crime on the basis that he was present when it took
place and that he now believes that he should not have been there at the
time."
We granted David T. permission to
file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to
738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate
issues, and David T. has been competently represented by counsel on this
appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
