In re Jay T.
Filed 1/8/13 In
re Jay T. CA2/5
>
>
>
>
>
>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAY T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
B242030
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. PJ48210)
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court of the County of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles,
Morton Rochman, Judge. Affirmed.
Bahar
Law Office, Sarvenaz Bahar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
>INTRODUCTION
Following an adjudication and
disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained a petition charging minor and
appellant Jay T. (the minor) with battery causing great bodily injury. On appeal, his appointed counsel filed a
brief pursuant to href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)
requesting that this court independently
review the entire record to determine if there are any issues, which if
resolved in the minor’s favor, would require reversal or modification of the
judgment. Accordingly, we notified the
minor that he could brief any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he
wanted us to consider. The minor did not
file a response brief.
Based
on our independent review of the entire file, we conclude that there are no
arguable issues on appeal. We therefore
affirm the adjudication and disposition orders from which the minor appeals.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On
May 8, 2011, Daniel Marelich was a counselor at a residential mental health
facility called Project Six. His
responsibility was to “watch over the residents†at the facility. That day, Marelich observed the minor take a
hat from the victim who was a fellow resident at the facility. The victim repeatedly asked the minor to
return the hat, but the minor refused.
The victim then asked Marelich and another counselor to take the hat
from the minor. Because facility policy
prohibited the counselors from having physical contact with the residents,
Marelich asked the minor to return the hat, but the minor refused.
Marelich
attempted to separate the victim and the minor, asking the victim to sit
down. Marelich hoped that “once things
cooled . . . down the hat would get back to the [victim].†But the victim refused to sit down and
instead persisted in his efforts to recover his hat. When the victim tried to grab the hat from
the minor, the minor “got up†and confronted the victim. The victim turned and ran, and the minor
pursued him. The minor jumped on the victim’s
back, placed him in a headlock, and tackled him to the ground. The minor began to punch the victim until
Marelich was able to separate the two minors.
Following
the incident, the victim complained of severe shoulder pain. The victim suffered a broken collar bone that
required surgery to insert a metal plate and resulted in a four to five inch
scar on his shoulder.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In
a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the Los
Angeles County District alleged that the minor had committed battery with
serious bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision
(d). Following an adjudication and
disposition hearing, the juvenile court denied the minor’s motion to reduce the
charge to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), and
sustained the petition. The juvenile
court declared the minor a ward of the court, placed him home on probation, and
imposed terms and conditions on his probation.
The minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant
to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436, we examined the entire record to determine if there were any arguable
issues on appeal. Based on that
independent review, we have determined there are no href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">arguable issues on appeal. We are therefore satisfied that minor’s
appointed counsel has fully satisfied her responsibilities under >Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
>DISPOSITION
The adjudication and disposition
orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
MOSK,
J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KRIEGLER, J.