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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 disposition of a wardship petition, minor Paul B. admitted 

a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4),1

 assault by means 

of force likely to produce great bodily injury. Following a disposition hearing, the 

juvenile court adjudged Paul a ward of the court, placed him on formal probation, 

committed him to 15 days in juvenile 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 Wende2

 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 advised of his right to personally file a 

supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No 

 1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

2 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. 
2

supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the 

record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) 

 We find no arguable issues and therefore affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

 Since Paul makes no challenge to the jurisdictional 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 approached 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 ground and all three perpetrators began to kick 

and stomp on A.C.’s head and facial 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 arrested the following day at his home. 

 On April 16, 2014, the Solano County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship 

petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging 

that Paul committed a felony second degree robbery (§ 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 section 245, subdivision (a)(4), from a felony to a misdemeanor, 

and to add a misdemeanor violation of section 487, subdivision (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 Harvey3

waiver. 

 At the June 20, 2014 disposition hearing, Paul’s counsel challenged the probation 

officer’s recommendation for wardship and formal probation and asked the court to 

impose an informal probation period of six months. Paul’s attorney expressed concerns 

 3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. 
3

that formal wardship and probation 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 that 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 testimony, stating that it didn’t need testimony “to say that he’s a 

good kid,” a fact the court found not in dispute. The court found that, despite the “good 

positive things . . . about him,” the nature of the offense and the injuries suffered by the 

victim indicated that Paul would benefit from the closer level of supervision provided by 

formal wardship and probation. Paul was declared 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 detention and released to the custody of his parents. 

 A timely notice of appeal was filed. 

II. DISCUSSION

 Paul’s notice of appeal focuses on the court’s dispositional order. “[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 standard 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 that 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 support 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. DISPOSITION

 The dispositional order of the juvenile court is affirmed.
4

 _________________________ 

 BRUINIERS, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

_________________________ 

JONES, P. J. 

_________________________ 

SIMONS, J.