Filed 3/13/24 In re M.C. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

In re M.C., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

M.C., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 D082381

 (Super. Ct. No. J244715) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Ana L. Espana, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Lisa Ann Kopelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

 Minor M.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders sustaining felony false imprisonment and misdemeanor 

domestic battery allegations, declaring M.C. a ward of the court, and 

granting him probation with specific conditions. His court-appointed counsel 
2 

filed a brief raising no issues but seeking our independent review of the 

record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders 

v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We informed M.C. of his right to 

file a supplemental brief but he did not. Based on our independent review of 

the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the 

judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On December 16, 2022, the Office of the District Attorney filed a 

wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. 

The petition alleged M.C. committed one felony count of false imprisonment 

(Pen. Code1, § 236/237, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor count of domestic 

battery against a person with whom he shared a “dating relationship” (§ 243, 

subd. (e)(1)). At the January 11, 2023 detention hearing the court arraigned 

M.C. and he denied the charges. 

During the May 16, 2023 jurisdictional hearing the juvenile court heard 

testimony from the alleged victim, the alleged victim’s mother, and the 

investigating officer. The People also submitted Snapchat messages 

exchanged between M.C. and the alleged victim. Based on this evidence, the 

juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true as to both counts and 

continued the proceedings for a disposition hearing. 

At the June 29, 2023 disposition hearing, the People requested M.C.’s 

commitment to Urban Camp. However, the juvenile court determined the 

“least restrictive approach[]” was appropriate, ordering M.C. to reside in his 

mother’s home under the probation department’s supervision. M.C.’s 

probation included a prohibition against owning or possessing a firearm until 

he became 30 years old. (§ 29820, subd. (b).) 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
3 

DISCUSSION 

M.C.’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. Counsel included a 

statement of the case and facts but argued no grounds for reversal of the 

judgment. M.C.’s appellate counsel asked this court to independently review 

the record for error. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identifies this issue to 

assist the court: Was it unconstitutional to impose a firearms prohibition 

against the minor based on his misdemeanor battery adjudication?

We reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We 

have found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel 

represented M.C. both at trial and on appeal.

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed. 

 

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR: 

DATO, Acting P. J. 

CASTILLO, J.