In re Michael C. CA5

Filed 3/21/14 In re Michael C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MICHAEL C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067820

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JW089271-02)

v. OPINION MICHAEL C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. Warmerdam, Referee. Robert F. Kane, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

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

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations set forth in a juvenile wardship petition that appellant, Michael C., committed a violation of Penal Code section 69 (obstructing or resisting an executive officer by means of threat or violence), a felony, and that in committing that offense, he violated probation granted in a prior wardship proceeding. At the subsequent disposition hearing, the court continued appellant on probation; declared the maximum term of confinement to be three years eight months, less 173 days credit for time served; and ordered appellant committed to the Crossroads Facility. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. FACTS Michael Williams is a “juvenile correctional officer.”1 At approximately 11:10 a.m. on July 6, 2013, while on duty at Camp Erwin Owen, he observed appellant, who was sitting on his bunk, arguing with Officer Estrada. Because of recent “altercations,” the facility was “at a heightened sense of security,” and Estrada instructed appellant “many” times to sit with both feet on the floor. Appellant, however, had his feet on his bunk and refused to comply. Williams, who was approximately five feet away from Estrada, instructed appellant “to follow the directives of the officer.” In response, appellant “shouted that [he] wasn’t talking to [Williams].” At that point, Williams approached appellant and “told [him] to stand up and move to the television room.” Appellant responded that “[h]e