California Court of Appeal Jan 21, 2025 No. E083586Unpublished
Filed 1/21/25 In re M.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, E083586 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J299803) v. OPINION M.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Stephanie
Thornton-Harris, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant M.W. (minor) admitted an allegation that he committed
battery upon the victim “resulting in infliction of serious bodily injury specifically by
punching him repeatedly while on the ground.” (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d), count 2.)
The juvenile court placed minor with his parents as a ward of the court on various terms
and conditions of probation.
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 facts, a
statement of the case, and identifying four potentially arguable issues: (1) whether
minor’s plea was knowing and voluntary; (2) whether the court erred in failing to
sufficiently inquire into minor’s understanding of the proceedings; (3) whether minor’s
plea lacked a factual basis; and (4) whether we should remand the case to allow minor to
file a motion to withdraw the plea.
We offered minor the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he
has not done. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Minor punched the victim multiple times, while the victim was on the ground.
Another assailant kicked the victim at the same time. The victim attempted to get up
several times. A bystander told minor to stop fighting, but minor continued. The victim
required surgery for his injuries; doctors were planning a potential second surgery to
include a possible hip replacement. The fight was recorded by a surveillance camera.
2
The People filed a juvenile wardship petition on January 29, 2024, alleging minor
had committed assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (a)(4), count 1).
Minor reported that he did not have an IEP. Minor’s father and counsel reported
that minor did have an IEP. Both minor and his father reported that he had ADHD, for
which he did not take any medication. Both minor and his father reported that he did not
have any physical or developmental disabilities.
On January 30, 2024, the juvenile court detained minor with temporary placement
of minor vested with the probation officer.
On February 13, 2024, the People moved to amend the petition to add a count of
battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code § 243, subd. (d), count 2). The court
granted the motion.
Upon questioning by the court, minor indicated he understood the battery
allegation, that he had discussed the allegation and any possible defenses with counsel,
and that he did not need any further time to speak with his attorney before entering an
admission. The court went over minor’s constitutional rights with him, all which minor
said he understood. The parties agreed that if minor admitted the battery allegation, the
assault allegation would be dismissed and minor would receive ward probation.
The parties stipulated to a factual basis. Minor admitted that on or about January
22, 2024, he committed the crime of battery “resulting in infliction of serious bodily
injury specifically by punching [the victim] repeatedly while on the ground.”
3
The court found that minor understood “his right to counsel, his right to remain
silent, his right to a trial, to see, hear and confront evidence at the trial and to have
evidence subpoenaed on his behalf. [¶] He’s knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily
waived those rights. He understands the nature of the petition and the possible
consequences of his admission.” The court found minor had committed the offense of
battery with serious bodily injury and dismissed the count 1 allegation.
On March 5, 2024, the victim’s mother read a victim impact report in which she
indicated, among other things, that the victim had an upcoming surgery for a hip
replacement. Another individual read the victim’s own personal impact report into the
record; the victim alleged that the altercation resulted in his hip being dislocated, at least
part of which, was irreparable. The victim indicated he has trouble showering and
sleeping. He would probably never play sports again. “I’m not as confident as I use[d]
to be. Somedays leave me feeling like I[’]m worthless.”
The court responded, “I don’t know why this happened, but what happened is
completely unacceptable. The impact of [minor’s] conduct that day just reverberates, and
I agree with Mom here.” “I have no idea what you were doing, but you changed [the
victim’s] life irrevocably. He has to have a hip replacement, and he’s not even 18. He
won’t be able to do the sports you’ll be able to do.” “His life is changed. He’s not going
to be able to do the things you’re going to be able to do. I don’t know on what planet you
would think it’s okay, not only to start a fight like this, but to keep kicking and punching
once he’s down. That’s the thing that is so crazy about it. It’s beyond cruel.”
4
The court ordered minor placed with his parents as a ward of the court on various
terms and conditions of probation. The court continued the matter for preparation of
memorandum on the issue of victim restitution.
On March 22, 2024, the court appointed minor counsel for the purpose of
withdrawing minor’s admission. On March 28, 2024, minor filed an appeal from the
court’s findings of February 13, 2024.1
II. DISCUSSION
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
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON J.
RAPHAEL J.
1 Counsel apparently did not file a motion to withdraw minor’s admission, at least not prior to counsel’s filing of the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal also specifies it concerns the juvenile court’s order of probation, though that occurred on March 5, 2024.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, finding no arguable issues after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California.
Issues
Whether the minor's plea was knowing and voluntary.
Whether the court erred in failing to sufficiently inquire into the minor's understanding of the proceedings.
Whether the minor's plea lacked a factual basis.
Whether the case should be remanded to allow the minor to file a motion to withdraw the plea.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“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.”