Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. TJ14934, Donna Groman, Judge.
Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILLHITE, Acting P.J.
Darrell C. appeals from an order continuing wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed a battery (Pen. Code, § 242), a misdemeanor. A previous order of home on probation was terminated, and he was placed in the camp-community placement program. The court aggregated confinement time on two prior sustained petitions for robbery with use of a weapon and an attempted burglary and set the total maximum period of confinement at seven years and six months.
On February 10, 2007, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Los Angeles Police Officer Richard Tamez was in the area of 64th Street and Vermont when he saw appellant and co-minor Justin R. hitting another individual. The victim was “cowered over, bent over at his waistline. He had both his arms . . . in a defensive position, holding his fists up to his head in an attempt to prevent [appellant and his companion] from hitting him.” Appellant and Justin R. were both holding onto and hitting the victim. The victim did not appear to have any weapons in his hand. When the officer stopped his patrol car and put it in reverse, the tires “screeched,” and appellant and his companion looked at the officer, released their victim and fled. Appellant complied with the officer’s order to get down on the ground and was then arrested. Officer Tamez observed the fight for no more than five to ten seconds and did not see how it started.
In defense, appellant testified that he and Justin R. had just asked the victim for a dollar for the bus when the victim started swinging at them. Appellant surmised the victim was drunk. Justin R. was restraining the victim when Officer Tamez drove by. The victim had a six-pack of beer in his hand.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On November 14, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: MANELLA, J. SUZUKAWA, J.