IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
May 20, 2009
IN RE A.R-S., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW.
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
A.R-S., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0701574).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jones, P.J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 December 2008, the juvenile court adjudicated A.R-S., (the minor) a continued ward of the court because it found he committed first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a)).*fn1 The minor has asked this court to conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2007, a Contra Costa Juvenile Court adjudicated the minor a ward of the court after sustaining one count of second degree robbery against him (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). In a supplemental Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition filed on October 15, 2008, the People alleged the minor committed first degree residential burglary on October 8, 2008.
On the afternoon of October 8, 2008, Wendy Steve was sleeping in her bedroom at her house in Richmond. A sliding glass door separated her bedroom from the backyard. When she awoke, she saw a young man - whom she later identified as the minor - in her bedroom near the sliding glass door. Another man was standing outside, on the other side of the door. It looked as though the minor was passing something to the man outside.
As Steve looked at the minor again, he ran out of the house. Steve grabbed the gun underneath her mattress and "ran up towards where [the minor] ran... and... started shooting." Steve then ran back to her house and called 911. Richmond Police Officer Aaron Nunley responded "seconds" later. Steve rode in the back of Nunley's patrol car looking for the minor and his companion. As she did so, she saw the minor "walking down the street." She identified him as the person who was in her house earlier that day.*fn2
Police officers arrested the minor and took him to the police station. Later that day, Nunley spoke with the minor in the juvenile booking area of the police station.*fn3 Nunley orally advised the minor of his Miranda rights. The minor waived his rights and admitted he and "two other individuals went into the backyard" of Steve's home. He also admitted he climbed through Steve's bathroom window because he heard there was money and marijuana in the house. He tried to let the other individuals in the house, but he could not open the screen door. The minor eventually fled the house when he heard gun shots.
At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the court sustained the first degree burglary allegation. At the disposition hearing, the court indicated it had considered "the comments of counsel and of probation, [the] age of the minor, [the] circumstances and gravity of the events and the minor's history." The court set the maximum term of confinement at seven years and placed the minor at Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for up to 270 days.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442. Counsel informed the minor that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he declined to do so. We have conducted our independent review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, J., Bruiniers, J.*fn4