Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ09011906-03
Marchiano, P. J.
Defendant B.G. participated in a group assault of an Oakland chef, in which the assailants stole $200 and a backpack containing the victim’s chef knives. The juvenile court found that defendant had committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The court committed defendant to the custody of the probation department, and approved his placement in Camp Sweeney.
Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant’s counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
I.
This case is defendant’s third encounter with the juvenile justice system. The People filed the first wardship petition against defendant on February 19, 2009, alleging that defendant committed robbery and attempted robbery (§§ 211, 211/664). On March 3, 2009, defendant admitted felony grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)) as an amendment to the robbery charge, and the attempted robbery allegation was dismissed. On March 18, 2009, the juvenile court declared defendant a ward of the court, and released him on probation to his mother’s custody subject to electronic monitoring.
The People filed a second petition against defendant on October 8, 2009, alleging that he committed a new offense of felony grand theft and a related receipt of stolen property (§ 496). Defendant admitted the theft, with the level of the offense to be determined by the court, and the receipt charge was dismissed. The juvenile court determined the theft to be a felony. On October 28, 2009, the juvenile court continued defendant as a ward of the court, continued his probation, and released him to his mother’s custody on home supervision.
The People filed the third, and instant, wardship petition on December 21, 2009, alleging that defendant committed a new robbery. At the jurisdictional hearing, the parties stipulated to the following facts:
The victim, Justin England, would testify that he was walking southbound on Piedmont Avenue in Oakland, near Broadway, at 10:25 p.m. on December 17, 2009. He heard a group of individuals trying to sneak up behind him. As he was about to turn around, someone swung his arm around England’s neck and began to choke him. Two black males came around to the front of England and punched him in the face several times. The third member of the group, identified as M.H., continued to choke England from behind. One of the two males who were punching England said, “Try to look at me, I’m going to stick you in the face.” England thought the person had a knife and was going to stab him. All three individuals went through England’s pockets. One removed $200 from England’s jacket, and took his backpack which contained his chef knives, chef jacket, and chef shoes. The attackers then released England and fled.
Officer Koster of the Oakland Police Department would testify that he interviewed defendant, who described a particular church during the interview. Koster went to the church and found England’s backpack.
Defendant moved to suppress his statements to Officer Koster as involuntary. The juvenile court viewed a DVD of the interview “with great interest... a couple of times.” Rejecting defense arguments, the court found that there were no express threats or specific promises of leniency. At the defense counsel’s request, in order to show defendant had some prior experience with police, the parties stipulated that defendant had been arrested twice before. The juvenile court ruled that defendant’s statements were voluntary and denied the motion to suppress.
II.
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. Defendant was represented by counsel at all pertinent portions of the proceedings. Substantial evidence supported the court’s findings. The stipulated facts, coupled with defendant’s own statements, clearly show his participation in the robbery. The juvenile court properly denied the motion to suppress the statements as involuntary. The Camp Sweeney placement was well within the juvenile court’s discretion, given defendant’s prior record. There were no errors in the jurisdictional or dispositional proceedings.
III.
The jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders are affirmed.
We concur: Dondero, J., Banke, J.