Filed 7/31/26 In re M.F. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re M.F., a Person Coming Under the D086886
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J246362)
v.
M.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed.
Travis Daily, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
A petition was filed in juvenile court alleging M.F. (Minor) committed
an assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245,
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
subd. (a)(4)). The court ordered a competency examination of the minor. The
court reviewed the expert’s report and held a hearing. Without opposition,
the court found the minor was competent to stand trial.
The court held an adjudication hearing after which the court found the
assault charge to be true and found the allegation under section 12022.7,
subd. (a) also true. The court found the maximum confinement for the
assault and the allegation of great bodily injury to be six years.
A dispositional hearing was conducted after which the Minor was
ordered a ward of the court and placed on probation subject to various terms
and conditions.
The minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d. 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We
advised the Minor that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not
responded to our notice.
The true finding in this case arises from a violent confrontation
between the Minor and his mother inside the home. The mother and Minor
offered different versions of the events. The court accepted the mother’s
version of events and made true finding on the assault charge and the related
allegation under section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738
(Anders) counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in
2
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court erred in
finding the Minor to be competent to stand trial, and whether the court erred
in finding the Minor’s continued presence in the home was not in the Minor’s
best interest.
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented the Minor in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
RUBIN, Acting P. J.
BERMÚDEZ, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
3