Court Opinion

ID: 9950446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 23:03:10.537587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:10.372949
License: Public Domain

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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
                                                                D082381
THE PEOPLE,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Super. Ct. No. J244715)

         v.

M.C.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         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
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. Code 1, § 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.
                                       2
                                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.

                                       3