IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
December 28, 2010
IN RE CHARLES C., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. THE PEOPLE,
PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
CHARLES C., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. J39946)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jones, P.J.
In re Charles C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Charles C. appeals from a disposition entered after the juvenile court found true an allegation that he had committed felony grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c).) His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right. With this background, we turn to the underlying facts.
Jovan T. was a high school student. On January 25, 2010, Jovan walked into the school's gym and took his iPod out of his pocket. Appellant and another boy, who were also students at the school, walked up to Jovan and demanded to use the iPod. When Jovan declined, appellant "snatched" it from Jovan's hand. Jovan tried to get the iPod back but appellant warned him not to "do that." He also told Jovan he should not "snitch."
Later that day, Jovan told a police officer what appellant had done. The officer found Jovan's iPod in the pocket of appellant's pants.
Based on these facts, a petition was filed alleging appellant came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he had committed several offenses including felony grand theft. The case proceeded to a jurisdictional hearing where Jovan described the incident as is set forth above. Appellant defended the charges with testimony from two students who also were in the gym on the day in question. Both said that Jovan loaned the iPod to appellant. The court rejected the latter explanations and found the grand theft allegation to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.
At disposition, the court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation in the custody of his parents.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The juvenile court found the allegation in the petition to be true and its finding is supported by substantial evidence. The court did not commit any prejudicial evidentiary rulings. Appellant was adequately represented by counsel. We see no error in the disposition.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The disposition is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, J. Needham, J.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.