NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINION

RICHLI, J.

Following a jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true that defendant and appellant R.G. (Minor) had committed five counts of assault with a deadly weapon with means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7) and one count of mayhem (Pen. Code, § 203; count 1). The court also found true that Minor committed the above offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1).1 Minor was thereafter declared a ward of the court and placed on probation on various terms and conditions in the custody of his aunt. The matter was also transferred to Arizona pursuant to an interstate compact agreement. Defendant appeals from the judgment. We find no error and affirm.

I

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In an apparent gang retaliation, Minor, along with some 20 to 30 others, attacked five individuals in Minor's immediate neighborhood in Ontario, California on December 18, 2009, about 4:30 p.m. The attackers were armed with bats, pipes, poles, and sticks. Three of the five victims reluctantly testified and identified Minor as one of the participants and/or being present at the scene.

A few hours prior to the gang attack on the five victims, one of the victims, Christian Meeks, was involved in fist fight with an individual named Daniel Corona. In that fight, Meeks "won" the fight and damaged Corona's cellular telephone. Later that afternoon, Meeks saw Corona approach him and the other four victims with a group of four or five other individuals. Thereafter some 20 to 30 males arrived, armed with weapons. The men attacked Meeks and his friends with the weapons. Meeks testified that Minor was armed with a bat or stick. Minor swung the bat at Meeks three or four times. Meeks knew Minor and had also fought with him on a prior occasion.

T.J. was hit over six times with bats, mainly on his head. He suffered a fractured nose and was permanently blinded in his left eye as a result of the attack. T.J. heard numerous attackers calling out their gang name, "DPR," after the incident. T.J. identified several attackers, including Minor. T.J. had known Minor for about eight years and knew he belonged to the DPR gang. T.J. claimed that he did not see Minor holding a weapon or hit anyone, and he believed Minor was trying to stop others from hitting him. T.J. was present during the earlier fight between Meeks and Corona.

J.R. was also attacked by the group of men with weapons. She saw five to six people hit T.J. and J.T. 20 to 30 times. J.R. knew some of the attackers belonged to a gang called "DPR" or "KMR." During the attack, she heard about three-fourths of the attackers yelling out "DPR, D Street, KMR." She identified Minor as one of the attackers, but she did not recall seeing Minor hit anyone.

Ontario Police Officer Rubin Espinoza was dispatched to the scene and saw numerous individuals fighting in the street with bats and pipes. When he first arrived, he saw a male, later identified as T.J., sitting on the curb holding a bloody towel and bleeding from the eye. T.J. identified several of the attackers, including Minor, later at the hospital.

Minor had previously informed a gang unit police officer that he was a member of the "D Street" gang and that his moniker was "Rusty." The gang unit officer was familiar with various gangs in Ontario, including the "DPR or D Street or KMR" gang and the gang's territory. On one occasion, during a traffic stop, Minor was found with two other D Street or DPR gang members. On another occasion, Minor was found with four other documented DPR gang members. Based on the above factors and the circumstances of this incident, a gang expert concluded that Minor was a member of the DPR gang.

A gang expert testified that the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the DPR, D Street, or KMR criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members. The gang expert had contacted individual members of the DPR gang between 30 and 50 times and had conducted numerous criminal investigations involving DPR gang members. The investigations included assaults with deadly weapons, attempted murders, burglaries, and vehicle thefts. The gang expert estimated that there were approximately 26 members of the DPR gang and concluded DPR was a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (f). He had identified 11 individuals as belonging to the DPR gang who were involved in the subject attacks, including Minor. Based on his expertise, the gang expert explained that the attacks were made at the direction of DPR and that DPR had benefitted from the attacks by reinforcing DPR's history of violence, fear, and intimidation. The attack was also in retaliation for an earlier fight involving Meeks and DPR gang member Corona.

Minor's defense essentially was that he had not attacked anyone, that he was not part of the group of attackers, and that he was merely present at the scene after the incident began. Minor stated that he had tried to stop the group from hitting T.J. and had gotten in front of T.J. to prevent him from being hit. Minor denied carrying a weapon or knowing why the fight began. He also denied being a DPR gang member, but he acknowledged that some of his friends and cousins were DPR gang members. He admitted that he told the police several different lies about what he was doing on the day of the incident. He also admitted that his family drove him away from the neighborhood immediately following the incident.

II

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur.

RAMIREZ, P.J.

CODRINGTON, J.