In re E.R. CA6

Filed 6/2/15 In re E.R. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re E.R., a Person Coming Under the H041176 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 3-14-JV40452)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), which alleged that E.R., who was then 14 years old, committed a misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (a)). Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition. The juvenile court placed the minor on probation on condition that, among other things, he serve 60 days on the electronic monitoring program and participate in wraparound services. The minor filed a timely notice of appeal. He contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the order.

I. Statement of Facts A. Prosecution Case The present case involved an argument between the minor and his mother’s boyfriend C.L. It ended when the minor threw a pot of beans at C. C. had been a family friend for 20 years. About five years before the incident, the minor’s mother Maria I. divorced his father. Six to eight months after the divorce, Maria and C. began living together. The minor, his sister Cassandra R., and C.’s niece April M. also lived in the home. At about 4:00 p.m. on January 6, 2014, C. returned home. Maria was in the kitchen, but the minor was not home. After C. ate dinner, he saw that the lock on his bedroom door had been broken. Maria said that the lock was not broken when she had left to pick up Cassandra from school at 3:45 p.m. They assumed that the minor had broken the lock, because he had done so in the past. C. entered the bedroom and discovered that his iPod was missing. After he and Maria concluded that the minor had taken it, C. called the police. When the officers arrived, they told him that it was Maria’s responsibility and that C. also had the “right to correct” the minor since he was the “owner of the home.” After the police left, C. and Maria left the house at about 8:00 p.m. or 8:20 p.m. April was home after C. and Maria left. When the minor arrived home, he knocked because he had never been given a key to the house. April called C., who gave her permission to let the minor into the house. April told the minor that she would let him in if he gave her C.’s iPod. The minor gave it to her.1 C. and Maria returned at about 9:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. The minor was cooking soup in the kitchen. C. and Maria entered the kitchen and sat at the table. Both C. and Maria repeatedly asked the minor to sit down and talk with them about the iPod and the