In re Guillermo P. CA5

Filed 12/9/13 In re Guillermo P. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re GUILLERMO P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F066412

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12CEJ600440-1 )

v. OPINION GUILLERMO P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Hilary A. Chittick, Judge. Gregory M. Chappel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. .

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.

-ooOoo-

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97 (Kevin S.). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende and Kevin S., we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) On May 24, 2012, a juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that Guillermo P., the minor, then age 12, came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), in that, on or about May 22, 2012, the minor violated Penal Code section 286, subdivision (c)(2), sodomy by use of force. The incident at issue involved the minor and R.F., age 14, both students in middle school, during the early part of 2012. They were introduced to each other by R.F.’s younger sister. The two communicated with each other through Facebook and then considered themselves “boyfriend” and “girlfriend,” which, according to the minor, meant that they spent time together during breaks at school. According to R.F., they “broke up” within 3 or 4 weeks because R.F.’s friends did not like the minor, although the minor wanted to continue the relationship. While the two were “dating,” the minor told R.F.’s younger sister several times that he wanted to “fuck” R.F. R.F. did not believe her sister, saying the minor would never do that. But R.F. also testified that the minor had told her he wanted to have sex with her at his house and R.F. would tell him “no.” Although R.F. had been angry with the minor prior to the incident in question because he had given her a necklace belonging to a previous girlfriend, she claimed not to be angry with him on May 22, 2012. On that day, while R.F. was still at home, she received a text message from the minor asking her to text message him once she got to school, which she did. R.F. arrived at school an hour early, met with the minor and they