Filed 7/24/15 In re Javier C. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re JAVIER C., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 H041597

 (Santa Clara County

 Super. Ct. No. 3-14-JV40523 A & B)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAVIER C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for minor Javier C. has asked this court to review the record to 

determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436 (Wende); In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.) We find no 

arguable issues on appeal and affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

I. Statement of the Case

In February 2014, a juvenile wardship petition (Petition A) was filed pursuant to 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). The petition alleged that 

appellant, who was then 16 years old, committed the following misdemeanors: 
2

exhibiting a deadly weapon other than a firearm (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1) – count 

1); trespass on transit-related property (Pen. Code, § 369i, subd. (b) – count 2); and 

battery at a school (Pen. Code, §§ 242-243.2 – count 3). 

A few months later, a second judicial wardship petition (Petition B) was filed 

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

alleged that appellant committed the offense of resisting, delaying, or obstructing an 

officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). 

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing as to Petition A, the juvenile court 

found true the allegation that appellant had committed a battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242-

243.2). Following a contested jurisdiction hearing as to Petition B, the juvenile court 

found true the allegation that appellant had resisted, delayed, or obstructed an officer 

(Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). 

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court

and placed him on probation. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

II. Statement of Facts

A. Petition A

On October 1, 2013, Dominic A. and his cousin Mario J. were walking to class at 

Westmont High School when they were approached by four male students, including 

appellant. They “tried to holler . . . , claiming their set, trying to gang bang on us.” 

Appellant came within a foot of Dominic and Mario. Mario responded by saying “if you 

are going to be like, be in our face, do something.” Appellant called Dominic a “pussy”

and tried to punch him in the chest. According to Mario, appellant tried to grab 

Dominic’s collar. Dominic and Mario defended themselves. A fight ensued and was 

eventually stopped by a police officer. 
3

According to appellant, he was playing handball when Mario and Dominic yelled 

at them. As appellant and his companions were walking back to class, one of them said, 

“what’s up,” and punched him in his right eye. Appellant did not try to punch them or 

grab their collars. He denied calling Dominic a pussy. 

B. Petition B

On June 19, 2014, Officers Rolando Segura and Ryan Dote responded to a report 

of a gunshot and gang members hanging out in a back alley. Javier’s brother Jaime C. 

was one of the gang members. Since Jaime C. was on probation and subject to a search 

condition, the officers went to his nearby residence to conduct a search. Javier was 

advised that the officers were going to do a probation search at his residence and asked 

him to wait outside. Javier responded, “I don’t need to wait, I am not doing anything 

wrong,” and continued to walk towards the residence. Officer Dote told him to stop and 

grabbed his arm to prevent him from entering the residence, but Javier tried to pull away. 

At that point, Officer Dote took him to the ground and handcuffed him. 

III. Discussion

Appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that states the facts of the case, 

but raises no issues. Appellant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his 

own behalf, but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to Wende, supra,

25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no 

arguable issues on appeal.

IV. Disposition

The orders are affirmed.
4

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J. 

______________________________

Grover, J.