Filed 4/24/13 In re C.T. CA2/4 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FOUR 

In re C.T., A Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

C.T., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B242029 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. JJ19703) 

 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Catherine J. Pratt, Commissioner. Affirmed. 

 Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Respondent. 
2

 In the underlying proceeding, the juvenile court sustained a petition charging 

appellant C.T. with assault with a deadly weapon. Appellant’s court-appointed 

counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues. Following our independent 

examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

(Wende), we conclude that no arguable issues exist, and affirm.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On May 22, 2012, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 602, charging appellant, a minor born in 1995, with assault with a deadly 

weapon on Ricardo Lopez (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Accompanying the 

charge was an allegation that appellant inflicted great bodily injury on Lopez (Pen. 

Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Following the presentation of evidence at the 

adjudication hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition’s allegations 

regarding the offense charged, found the special allegation to be true, and 

determined the offense to be a felony. The juvenile court declared appellant to be a 

ward of the court and ordered him placed in his home on probation. This appeal 

followed. 

FACTS 

A. Prosecution Evidence 

 The prosecution’s key witnesses were Daniel T. and his uncle, Ricardo 

Lopez. Daniel testified that in May 2012, he lived close to appellant, who often 

gave him “dirty looks” as he went to school. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on May 

18, 2012, Daniel was on his bicycle, going to visit Lopez. As Daniel neared 

Lopez’s house, he passed appellant, who said, “Fuck you. I’m going to take your 

bike.” Daniel stopped and used his cell phone to tell Lopez that appellant was 
3

“punking [him]” and “talking shit to [him].” Daniel asked Lopez to try to persuade 

appellant to “stop telling [him] stuff.” Lopez arranged to meet Daniel near Lopez’s 

house. 

 Daniel further testified that Lopez arrived and went to talk to appellant. 

Daniel, who stood some distance away, heard Lopez ask why appellant was 

“messing with [his] nephew.” In response, appellant moved close to Lopez and 

said, “Yes, I’m messing with him.” Appellant then pushed Lopez and punched his 

face and chest. According to Daniel, appellant appeared to swing at Lopez with 

the side of his fist, leading with the thumb, but he saw no weapon in appellant’s 

hand. After Lopez swung once in response to appellant’s punches, Daniel said to 

Lopez, “Let’s go. Let’s just go home.” As they left, Daniel saw blood dripping 

from Lopez’s chin. Soon afterward, Daniel accompanied Lopez to a hospital. 

Lopez testified as follows: After Daniel told him by cell phone that 

appellant was bothering him, he met Daniel on the street. Near Daniel was a 

female cousin of appellant, who said, “[W]ho the fuck are you? You can’t do shit.” 

Lopez walked over to appellant, who was standing near his own house. When 

Lopez asked appellant why he was “bugging” Daniel, appellant replied, “Oh, what 

the fuck are you going to do?” He then pushed Lopez and punched his face. 

Although Lopez saw no weapon in appellant’s hands, the punch created a 

laceration between two and two-and-one-half inches in length on Lopez’s chin. 

Appellant also punched Lopez’s chest and shoulder, causing two one-inch 

lacerations. Lopez threw one punch in self-defense, but he felt “shocked,” his chin 

hurt, and his injuries made him feel weak. When Daniel said, “Let’s go,” Lopez 

agreed. Shortly afterward, Lopez went to a hospital, where his lacerations were 

stitched. 
4

 South Gate Police Department Officer Christopher Vajravukka testified that 

he responded to the incident. After Vajravukka advised appellant of his rights 

under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda), appellant agreed to 

speak with him.1 According to Vajravukka, appellant said that when Lopez 

confronted him, he removed a knife from his pocket, unfolded it, and held it in his 

fist while he punched Lopez. Vajravukka further testified that another officer 

recovered the knife, which had a two- to three-inch blade. 

B. Defense Evidence 

 Ana Mejia, appellant’s aunt, testified that on May 18, 2012, she was inside 

her house when she heard her daughter and a neighbor screaming outside. Upon 

leaving the house, Mejia saw appellant and Lopez grappling with each other. 

Lopez then threw a punch at appellant, who punched back in self-defense. When 

Mejia yelled at the combatants to halt, they stopped fighting, and appellant entered 

Mejia’s house. As Lopez left the area with Daniel, Lopez told Mejia’s daughter 

that he “was going to send a girlfriend to beat her up and shoot her.” 

 1 We note that when Vajravukka arrived at the scene, he initially interviewed 

appellant in his house without advising him of his Miranda rights. According to 

Vajravukka, appellant’s mother permitted him to enter the house to talk to appellant. 

Vajravukka further testified that appellant was not then detained, and that his freedom 

was not restricted in any way. In view of this testimony, the juvenile court found that no 

violation of appellant’s Miranda rights occurred during the initial interview. (In re Eric 

J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 527 [the procedural safeguards in Miranda are triggered only by 

custodial interrogation]; In re Danny E. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 44, 50 [Miranda

warnings were not required when police officers interviewed juvenile in his own home, 

as “no objective indicia of arrest or detention were apparent”].)
5

DISCUSSION 

 After an examination of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed 

an opening brief raising no issues and requesting this court to review the record 

independently pursuant to Wende. In addition, counsel advised appellant of his 

right to submit by supplement brief any contentions or argument he wished the 

court to consider. Appellant has neither presented a brief nor identified any 

potential issues. Our examination of the entire record establishes that no arguable 

issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

 MANELLA, J. 

We concur: 

EPSTEIN, P. J. 

WILLHITE, J.