In re Danny C. CA4/3

Filed 7/23/14 In re Danny C. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re DANNY C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G049589 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DL048247) v. OPINION DANNY C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard Y. Lee, Judge. Affirmed. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

1. Introduction In the dispositional order, the juvenile court found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt allegations that Danny C. (the Minor) committed one count (count 1) of forcibly committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)) and one count (count 4) of making criminal threats (id., § 422, subd. (a)). The court ordered the Minor to continue as a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (section 602) and committed him to the custody of the Orange County Probation Department for commitment to juvenile hall for 68 days, with credit for 54 days previously served. The Minor timely appealed from the dispositional order. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. The Minor was granted 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf, but did not file anything. We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief and have found no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

2. Procedural History In July 2013, wardship proceedings commenced against the Minor, who was then 13 years of age. The district attorney filed a petition (Petition No. 1) alleging the Minor committed one count of continuous sexual abuse (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)), two counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years (id., § 288, subd. (a)), two counts of inducing a child under the age of 16 years to engage in a lewd act (id., § 266j), one count of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (id., § 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), and one count of sodomy with another person under the age of 18 years (id., § 286, subd. (b)(1)).