Peoplev.E.M. (In re E.M.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)Jun 11, 2019
C087239 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2019)

C087239

06-11-2019

In re E.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.M., Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JV138263)

Appointed counsel for minor E.M. asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor, we will affirm the judgment.

I

The Sacramento County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition against the 14-year-old minor, alleging five counts of forcible lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under age 14. At a contested jurisdictional hearing, the victim testified that beginning when she was 10 or 11 years old, the minor inserted his penis into her vagina against her will on two specific occasions. The victim testified that the minor had done this "more than five times" altogether. Her videotaped SAFE interview was played in which she accused the minor not only of doing those acts but of kissing her with his tongue inside her mouth and touching her over and under her clothes against her will.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found that counts 1 and 2 were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and it sustained those counts. At disposition, the juvenile court adjudged the minor a ward of the court, placed him on probation, committed him to a Level II out-of-state facility, and directed him to participate in a juvenile sexual offender program.

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from the minor.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/_________


MAURO, Acting P. J. We concur: /S/_________
HOCH, J. /S/_________
KRAUSE, J.