Filed 5/15/13 In re B.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 B.M., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
E057400
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. INJ1200008)
v.
OPINION
B.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Lawrence P. Best,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Kristin A. Erickson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
A juvenile court found true that defendant and appellant B.M. (minor) committed
misdemeanor battery on school property. (Pen. Code, § 243.2, subd. (a)(1).)1
Immediately thereafter, and after waiving his right to a probation report, minor was
placed on probation in the custody of his father for a period of six months pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a), on various terms and
conditions. Minor appeals from the judgment. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On October 5, 2011, the victim was walking to his class at Coachella Valley High
School when minor and another juvenile approached him. Minor asked the victim if he
wanted to fight; earlier that morning, the victim and minor had “bumped into each other.”
The victim replied, “no,” and walked away. Minor then grabbed the victim’s collar from
behind, turned him around, and punched the victim in the face. Minor also pulled the
victim by the collar and kneed him in the face. The victim suffered a red mark on his
check as a result.
II
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, a
1 The court found the second allegation, petty theft in violation of Penal Code
section 484, subdivision (a), not true.
2
summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to conduct
an independent review of the record.
We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has
not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
KING
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
3