Filed 4/24/13 In re C.T. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 a nd 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Supe rior 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 dead ly weapon. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an opening brief raisi ng 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 bor n 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 in flicted great bodily injury on Lopez (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Following the presentation of evidence at the adjudication hearing, the juvenile c ourt sustained the petition’s allegations regarding the offense charged, found th e 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 sa id, “Fuck you. I’m going to take your bike.” Daniel stopped and used his ce ll phone to tell Lopez that appellant was3 “punking [him]” and “talking shit to [him].” Daniel asked Lopez to try to persuade appellant to “stop telling [him] stuff.” L opez arranged to meet Daniel near Lopez’s

house. Daniel further testified that Lopez a rrived and went to talk to appellant. Daniel, who stood some distance away, heard Lopez ask why appellant was “messing with [his] nephew.” In respons e, appellant moved close to Lopez and said, “Yes, I’m messing with him.” Appe llant then pushed Lopez and punched his face and chest. According to Daniel, appe llant appeared to swing at Lopez with the side of his fist, leading with the t humb, 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 L opez 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 wa s 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 appe llant’s hands, the punch created a

laceration between two and two-and-one-hal f inches in length on Lopez’s chin. Appellant also punched Lopez’s ches t and shoulder, causing two one-inch lacerations. Lopez threw one punch in sel f-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 Va jravukka 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 hi s 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, testifie d 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 a nd Lopez grappling with each other. Lopez then threw a punch at appellant, w ho punched back in self-defense. When Mejia yelled at the combatants to halt, th ey stopped fighting, a nd appellant entered Mejia’s house. As Lopez left the area w ith 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 wa s 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 office rs interviewed juvenile in his own home, as “no objective indicia of arrest or detention were apparent”].)5 DISCUSSION After an examination of the record, a ppellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and reque sting 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 neith er 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.