1

Filed 7/18/16 In re G.C. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re G.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. G.C., Defendant and Appellant. E064674 (Super.Ct.No. J260689)

O PINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes , Judge. Affirmed. Kyle D. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant

. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A

. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 9, 2015, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a petition to

declare defendant and appellant G.C. (minor) a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §602, subd. (a).) The petition alleged that on or about April 15, 2015, minor committed a battery against another minor, N.D. (the victim), under Penal Code section 242. On August 12, 2015, after a one

- day jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegations in the petition. On September 9, 2015, t he court ordered minor to be placed on summary probation under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 725,

subdiv ision (a). T he court placed minor in the custody of her mother rather than declaring minor a ward of the court. On October 14, 2015, minor fi led a timely notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.405, subd. (a)(1).) On October 26, 2016, minor timely filed an amended notice of appeal. On February 19, 2016, minor’s probation office r recommended minor be discharged from probation. On Marc h 3, 2016, the juvenile court found minor satisfactorily completed probation ; minor was disc harged from probation, the petition

was dismissed , and all records were ordered to be sealed. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786, subd. (a), (b).)3

B

. FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 15, 2015, minor and the victim became involved in a fight at school. Minor approached the victim and grabbed her hair. The two then exchanged blows ;

minor hit the victim two to four times. The question at the jurisdictional hearing was whether min or’s initiation of the fight was justified because minor believed that the victim and her friends planned to “jump” minor at a later time

. T he victim and minor were 12 and 13 years old, respectively , at the time of the hearing . Minor was taller and large r than the victim. The girls shared five daily class periods together. They started having problems with one another approximately five

weeks into the school year. The day before the incident, minor and the victim had a dispute during their third period class. Minor had told the v ictim to stay away from her. At some point, the victim made a movement or gesture that caused both minor and their teacher to believe that the victim was challenging minor to a fight. The victim testified this was a

misunders tanding; the teacher called her name, and she was just standing up to go get paperwork. When the victim stood up, m inor told the victim to “get down.” Shortly thereafter

minor began to cry ; she went to the assistant principal’s office. T he assistant pri ncipal

called the victim into his office , where she stayed for the rest of the school day.

The victim admitted during testimony that the assistant principal kept her in his office because she “had issues with the other girls in [class] and [ minor ] .” The victim4

understood this to mean that she was pulled from class so she would leave minor alone.

She later stated testified she was pulled from class for her own safety. The next day, the victim was walking to her first period class; she sa w minor with

two friends out of the corner of her eye. Minor approached the victim from the side and pulled the victim’s hair. The victim said , “Let go of my hair.” Minor responded , “I’m tired of you talking about my grandma.” Minor hit the victim in the eye and t he girls began hitting each other . The victim was struck more than once, but less than five times.

Officer Ron an Colleoc conducted an interview with minor under In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3 d 855. (Pen. Code, § 26, subd. (1).) Minor told Officer Colle oc that she knew the difference between right and wrong. She receives punishment when she does something wrong. When asked for example of things that are right and wrong, minor stated that being a good citizen is right and lying is wrong. Minor told Off icer Colleoc that her school and parents have not taught her anything about fighting generally. Her mother, however, told her it was wrong to hit another person first. Minor’s guardian, her

adult sister, testified that she has t old minor it is wrong to f ight people.

Minor testified. She stated that she was friends with the victim and the victim’s older sister, T.D. T.D. wanted a romantic relationship with minor, but minor was not interested. After minor rejected T.D.’s advances, the victim began sayin g negative things about minor. This started about five weeks into the school year. From thereon, the

victim and her siblings bullied minor.5

Before the incident, minor heard the victim say , “Oh, me and my squad is gonna beat your A. ” Minor understood th is to mean that the victim and a group of girls were going to “jump” minor; m inor was scared for her safety.

Minor reported the threats to teachers; she was told to “ talk it out ” with the victim. Minor had also gone and discussed her concerns many times with the assistant principal, including on the day before the fight. M i nor’s mother had gone to the school to talk

about the victim and her siblings and friends bullying minor. Minor testified that she decided that her best option was to fight the victim alone. Otherwise, five or six people would attack her at once . Minor admitted to pulling the victim’s hair first. She also admitted to doing this, in part, out of anger. Her primary motivation, however, was to avoid being attacked by the victim and he r “squad.” In the probation report, the probation officer concluded , “[a]fter investigation it appears the minor may truly be the victim in the case.” The conclusion was reached after the probation officer discovered disciplinary actions taken by the sch ool agains t the victim and her siblings. During the current school year, the victim had 23 entries including multiple disciplinary actions for bullying and “ causing, attempting, or threatening personal injury. ” The victim’s twin brother had 24 entries, i ncluding one for possessing a knife or dangerous weapon and multiple disciplinary actions f or “ causing, attempting, or threatening physical injury. ” The victim’s older sister had 1 6 disciplinary entries, including one for harassment or int imidation, two f or horseplay and multiple

actions for “ causing, attempting, or threatening physical injury ” ; and two incidents of bullying (one of which involved minor as the victim).6 DISCUSSION

After minor appe aled, and upon her request, this court ap pointed counsel to represent her . Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to

undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but s he has

not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the re cord for potential error and find no error.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

McKINSTER J.