In re Gabriel M. CA5

Filed 3/8/13 In re Gabriel M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 GABRIEL M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F065599

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MJL017689)

v. OPINION GABRIEL M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Thomas L. Bender, Judge. Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant, Gabriel M., a minor, admitted an allegation set forth in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) that he committed an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, in violation of former Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1).1 At the disposition hearing, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court, declared the instant offense to be a misdemeanor and placed appellant on probation with various terms and conditions, including that he serve 30 days in juvenile hall. On appeal, appellant‟s sole contention is that the court erred in imposing the juvenile hall condition of probation. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Factual Background2 A Madera Police Department report indicated the following: On December 5, 2011, the victim and his sister were walking home from school when appellant approached and told the victim he wanted to fight him. The victim said he did not want to fight, and he and his sister continued walking. At that point, appellant reached around the victim‟s sister and struck the victim in the face. X-rays revealed that the victim‟s nose was broken in two places. The probation officer asked appellant “how he felt about the incident.” Appellant responded, “„I don‟t know how I feel‟ as he shrugged his shoulders and smirked.” Appellant “expressed no remorse for his actions, nor did he appear to accept responsibility for his behavior ....”