1 Filed 10/23/14 In re Paul B. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

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

v. PAUL B., Defendant and Appellant. A142298
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. J42471)

Pursuant to a negotiated di sposition of a wardship petitio n, minor Paul B. admitted
a misdemeanor violation of Penal Co de section 245, subdivision (a)(4), 1 assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily in jury. Following a di sposition hearing, the juvenile court adjudged Paul a ward of th e court, placed him on formal probation, committed him to 15 days in j uvenile hall with credit for 15 days of detention, and released him into the custody of his parents. Paul appeals from the dispositional order. Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende 2 brief, certifying that counsel has been unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also has submitted a declaration confirming that Paul has been ad vised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wi shes to call to the c ourt’s attention. No

1 Undesignated statutory refere nces are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.2 supplemental brief has been submitted. As re quired, we have indepe ndently reviewed the record. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) We find no arguable issu es and therefore affirm.
I. B ACKGROUND Since Paul makes no challenge to the juri sdictional finding, we discuss the facts of the underlying offense only as relevant to the court’s dispositional order. On April 14, 2014, Paul and two friends approa ched the victim, A.C., in his school’s parking lot. Paul wrapped his arm around A.C.’s neck, squeezing it to the point where A.C. began to lose consciousness. Paul pulled A.C. to the grou nd and all three perpetrators began to kick and stomp on A.C.’s head and fa cial area. A.C. suffered a small laceration, redness, and swelling to the top of his head . During the assault, one of the suspects took A.C.’s cell phone from his pants pocket. Paul was a rrested the following day at his home. On April 16, 2014, the Solano County District Attorn ey filed a juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that Paul committed a felony second degree ro bbery (§ 211), a serious and violent felony (§§ 667.5, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c)). The petition also alleged felony assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), a serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)). On April 30, 2014, the district attorney orally moved to amend the petition to
reduce the violation of secti on 245, subdivision (a)(4), from a felony to a misdemeanor,
and to add a misdemeanor viol ation of section 487, subdivisi on (c) (theft). Paul admitted
the misdemeanor violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(4 ). The robbery charge was dismissed outright, and the misdemeanor theft charge was dismissed with a Harvey 3
waiver. At the June 20, 2014 dis position hearing, Paul’s couns el challenged the probation officer’s recommendation for wardship and fo rmal probation and asked the court to impose an informal probation pe riod of six months. Paul’s attorney expressed concerns

3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.3 that formal wardship and pr obation could impact Paul’s ability to apply to college, receive financial aid, or join the military. The probation officer testified that Paul was remorseful about the offense, which appeared to be an isolated incident, and th at Paul came from a supportive family and
seemed at low risk for future violence or reoffending. Paul’s counsel asked to call Paul’s mother and aunt to testify as to his lack of violent character or history. The court
declined to receive the testim ony, stating that it didn’t need testimony “to say that he’s a good kid,” a fact the court found not in dis pute. The court found that, despite the “good positive things . . . about him,” the nature of the offense and the inju ries suffered by the
victim indicated that Paul would benefit from the closer level of su pervision provided by formal wardship and probation. Paul was de clared a ward of the court and placed on formal probation for a period of one year, with standard terms of probation. The maximum term of confinement was set at one year. Paul was committed to juvenile hall for 15 days with credit for 15 days of detenti on and released to the custody of his parents. A timely notice of appeal was filed.
II. D ISCUSSION Paul’s notice of appeal focuses on the co urt’s dispositional orde r. “[T]he juvenile court has long enjoyed great discretion in the disposition of juvenile matters.” ( In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 411.) “The st andard of review of juvenile court
commitment decisions is well established. ‘The decision of the juvenile court . . . may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing th at the court abused its discretion in its commitment of the minor.’ ” ( In re Jose R . (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 55, 59.) “ ‘ “We must indulge all reasonable inferences to s upport the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is substantial evidence to support them.” ’ [Citation.]” ( In re Robert H . (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1330.) No arguable issue is presented as to the dispositional order.
III. D ISPOSITION The dispositional order of the juvenile court is affirmed.4 _ ____________ ____________ BRUINIERS, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________ ____________ JONES, P. J.

_____________ ____________ SIMONS, J.