Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. TJ19116, Catherine J. Pratt, Judge.
Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
Appellant D.T. was placed home on probation after the juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that D.T. had committed a second degree robbery, in violation of Penal Code section 211. D.T. filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment.
This court appointed counsel to represent D.T. on appeal. On April 19, 2011, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record for arguable contentions. D.T. was advised by letter, dated April 19, 2011, of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. D.T. has not responded to the court’s invitation for further briefing.
We have completed our review of the record. Testimony at the adjudication revealed that D.T. was one of three juveniles who assaulted and robbed Gustavo Martinez of his cell phone. D.T. was identified shortly after the robbery in a field showup of the three suspects. Martinez’s cell phone was recovered from the back seat of a police car, where one of the three attackers had been placed. D.T. repeatedly gave officers an incorrect name and date of birth at the police station, delaying her identification and the ability of officers to contact a responsible adult. The juvenile court rejected D.T.’s testimony that she did not participate in a robbery. D.T. testified that Martinez was intoxicated and called D.T. and her companions derogatory names in Spanish, but that she did not take part in an attack on Martinez or take his cell phone.
The trial court’s finding that D.T. committed a robbery is supported by substantial evidence. The order of home on probation contains no improper or unauthorized conditions. There are no arguable appellate contentions. The judgment is affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.)
We concur: TURNER, P. J., MOSK, J.