People v. Nia People CA1/2

Filed 6/30/16 P. v. Nia P. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A146303 v. NIA P., (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J042797) Defendant and Appellant.

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that appellant, Nia P., then a minor, had committed simple assault and battery, misdemeanor violations of Penal Code sections 240 and 242.1 At the disposition hearing on September 15, 2015, the juvenile court placed appellant on six months informal probation, without declaring her a ward of the court. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. Appellant has also been informed of her right to file supplemental briefing, and she has not done so. After our independent review of the record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, and we affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A juvenile wardship petition was filed on January 6, 2015, alleging that on December 3, 2014, appellant had committed two felonies: assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on July 31, August 3, and August 4, 2015. Both sides called multiple witnesses and introduced evidence concerning a hand- to-hand fight between appellant and another minor, D.G., at Allan Witt Park in Fairfield on December 1, 2014. Prosecution Testimony Appellant’s counsel has so thoroughly described the prosecution testimony from the contested jurisdictional hearing in her brief that we set it forth below, with minor stylistic changes and without the headings. “On the afternoon of the incident, D.G. received a phone call from Lisa F., her cousin. [Lisa] told D.G. that she had seen appellant and her friend Chantell at Wal-Mart, and that appellant had approached [Lisa] about wanting to fight. [Lisa] testified that appellant and Chantell approached [Lisa] and her friend Curtis at Wal-Mart, and asked them if Dacoiyah and D.G. had a problem with them, and [Lisa] said yes. After they left the store, [Lisa] saw that appellant and Chantell had added D.G. and Dacoiyah on Twitter, asking them to fight. [Lisa] called D.G. and told her this and D.G. became angry. Chantell messaged [Lisa] and the girls arranged to meet at Allan Witt Park. “D.G. told her mother that she was going to fight appellant because she was tired of the back and forth. D.G’s mother told her not to go, but D.G. went anyway. When D.G. knew that appellant was going to be there, she expected to fight her. “D.G. left from her house with Yvonne in Yvonne’s car and went to Allan Witt Park around 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. [Lisa], D.G., Dacoiya[h] and Yvonne arrived in Yvonne’s car and they waited outside Yvonne’s car for appellant and Chantell to arrive. “D.G. identified appellant in the courtroom as someone she ‘had problems with.’ [¶] . . .