IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
December 17, 2010
IN RE WALTER S., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW.
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
WALTER S., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C-162129-03
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simons, J.
In re Walter S. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
The juvenile court found that Walter S. (appellant) committed robbery, theft of a vehicle, and other offenses; continued him as a ward of the court; and removed him from his home. Appellant's counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
On March 10, 2010, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) petition was filed in Alameda County Juvenile Court, charging appellant, born in July 1992, with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) (count 1), theft of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) (count 2), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) (count 3), and misdemeanor false identification to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9) (count 4). The petition alleged that appellant was armed with a firearm in the commission of the robbery (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)).
At the March 30, 2010 contested jurisdictional hearing, the People presented testimony from the victim, Jaime R., who testified that in early March he was trying to sell an automobile, a yellow Buick Regal. On March 7, 2010, the victim met with appellant in San Leandro, and appellant asked to do a test drive of the car. During the test drive, a black SUV (sport-utility vehicle) drove in front of and blocked the Buick. The victim put the car in reverse and told appellant to accelerate and get away, but appellant instead stopped the Buick. A passenger exited the SUV holding a gun and told appellant and the victim to get out of the Buick. The assailant drove off in the Buick and the SUV also drove away.
On March 8, 2010, a Union City police officer stopped the Buick stolen from the victim for a speeding violation. Appellant was driving the Buick. Appellant gave his name as Marcus Higgins. The officer ran a stolen vehicle check and the Buick came back as stolen. Appellant admitted that Marcus Higgins was not his real name. A patdown search revealed vehicle registration papers for the Buick in appellant's clothing. After being advised of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), appellant admitted he knew the vehicle had been stolen, and that he had been present during the robbery. He also admitted that he knew the assailant and provided the officer a partial name.
The juvenile court found all four counts and the weapon enhancement true beyond a reasonable doubt. At the April 2010 dispositional hearing, the court continued appellant as a ward of the court*fn1 and removed him from his home to be placed at Rite of Passage. The court ruled that his maximum period of confinement is eight years.
We have reviewed the record and have found no arguable appellate issues.
Appellant was represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings and there is no indication in the record that counsel was ineffective.
The fact of appellant's possession of the Buick on March 8 and appellant's admissions to the arresting officer provide substantial evidence (In re Branden O. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 637, 641-642) supporting the juvenile court's finding that all four counts and the weapon enhancement are true beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular, the evidence leaves no doubt that appellant was an accomplice of the armed assailant who stole the Buick on March 7.
In light of the severity of the current offenses and appellant's past record, the juvenile court did not err in its disposition.
Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court's attention any issue he believed deserved review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a supplementary brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.