Filed 2/4/15 In re J.W. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re J.W., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
E061707
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. J255370)
v.
OPINION
J.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn M. Poncin,
Judge. Affirmed.
Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A juvenile wardship petition was filed against defendant and appellant J.W.
(minor), pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The petition alleged
1
three counts: (1) criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422); (2) battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242/243,
subd. (a)); and (3) interference with a wireless communication device (Pen. Code,
§ 591.5). As to count 1, a juvenile court found true the lesser included offense of
attempted criminal threats. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/422, subd. (a).) On minor’s counsel’s
motion, the court reduced the count to a misdemeanor. The court also found true the
allegations in counts 2 and 3, but subsequently dismissed those counts. The matter was
transferred to San Bernardino County, where minor resided, for disposition. The juvenile
court there considered the probation officer’s disposition report. The court did not
declare minor a ward, but placed him in the custody of his mother on terms of summary
probation, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a).
Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2014, minor, his two brothers, and his mother (mother) drove to the
mall. After they left the mall, mother wanted to drop by her friend Pam’s house, but
minor did not want to go with them. Minor was complaining and cussing. Mother felt
disrespected, so she pulled over at the Montclair Police Department parking lot and told
minor she would get police assistance because he was being unruly. Minor calmed down,
so mother drove to Pam’s apartment. Once they arrived, mother asked minor to get out
of the car, but he refused and began cussing at her again. Mother got out of the car and
tried to open minor’s door, but he locked it. Mother took out her cell phone, and minor
suddenly opened the door and hit her in the leg. She told him she was going to call the
2
police, and he hit the phone out of her hand. Pam came outside, and mother asked if she
could use her house phone. Minor told mother, “I’m going to kick your f---ing ass.”
Mother attempted to go up some stairs to Pam’s apartment. The argument escalated, and
minor said, “You’re not gonna do that. You’re not gonna go call the police.”
At the jurisdiction hearing, when asked if she feared for her safety during the
incident, mother just said she “prefer[red] non-confrontation.” At another point, she said
she was not afraid, and added that minor was “just a little more aggressive than [she] had
seen him.”
Mother’s friend, Pam, testified at the hearing, as well. She said that one week
prior to the incident, she went to mother’s house and saw minor and mother arguing and
wrestling on the ground.
DISCUSSION
Minor appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent
him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case
and one potential arguable issue: whether there was sufficient evidence of minor’s intent
to cause fear to support the court’s true finding on count 1. Counsel has also requested
this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he
has not done.
3
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
KING
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4