In re C.S. CA5

Filed 7/7/21 In re C.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. F081640 THE PEOPLE, (Stanislaus Super. Ct. Plaintiff and Respondent, No. JVDL-19-000225)

v. (Merced Super. Ct. No. 20JL-00091-A) C.S., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County and the Superior Court of Merced County. Rubén A. Villalobos and Mark V. Bacciarini, Judges.† Patrick J. Hoynoski, 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 Levy, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and DeSantos, J. † Judge Villalobos presided over the contested evidentiary hearing in the Stanislaus County case and Judge Bacciarini presided over the dispositional hearing in the Merced County case.

In July 2020, following a contested evidentiary hearing, the Juvenile Court of Stanislaus County sustained a juvenile wardship petition that had been filed against appellant C.S. The court found true beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had committed a lewd and lascivious act on a minor under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The contested hearing established that appellant touched his then seven-year-old niece on her “front private” under her underwear. The victim testified he had rubbed her while he touched her. Appellant also touched her “boobs.” In July 2020, this matter was transferred to the Juvenile Court of Merced County because appellant was residing within that court’s jurisdiction. In September 2020, that juvenile court adjudged appellant to be a ward of the court. Various conditions of probation were imposed, including that he attend sex offender treatment. In August 2020, before the disposition in this matter occurred, appellant filed a notice of appeal. In March 2021, appellant filed a motion with this court requesting we construe his appeal as being filed after the juvenile disposition. On March 26, 2021, this court found good cause to grant appellant’s motion. We deemed his notice of appeal filed in August 2020 as being filed immediately after the September 2020 dispositional hearing. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief with this court that raises no issues but asks us to review the record independently. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) In April 2021, we advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental letter brief with us raising any issues he deemed important. Appellant failed to file anything. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record. The Juvenile Court of Stanislaus County found the victim’s testimony “very credible” and it sustained the petition. Nothing in this record indicates “the victim’s testimony was inherently improbable or otherwise insubstantial.” (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.) Moreover, the imposed conditions of probation (1) had a relationship to the crime;