Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County No. JD2839. David W. Moranda, Judge.
Gregory L. Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
On October 10, 2008, as E.M. rode his bicycle home from school in Merced, appellant, L.V., followed him and called out for E.M. to stop. E.M. stopped and appellant began questioning E.M. regarding things E.M. allegedly said about appellant and appellant’s brother. Appellant summoned his brother and told E.M. to get off the bicycle. E.M. complied and appellant then got on the bicycle and rode away. However, before leaving, appellant told E.M., “If you do anything, I’m going to do something to you.” E.M. did not try to prevent appellant from taking the bicycle because he thought appellant would assault him if he did.
On October 27, 2008, appellant and other juveniles chased E.M. and his brother, A.M. When the juveniles caught up to them, A.M. got off his bicycle and was punched by appellant in the head and face area. Appellant also kicked E.M. on the leg several times.
Appellant was interviewed by Merced County Sheriff’s deputies on October 28, 2008, and admitted taking E.M.’s bicycle on October 10, 2008, disassembling it, and giving some parts away. Appellant also admitted assaulting E.M. and his brother the previous day claiming he did so because they were “dogging him.”
On November 20, 2008, A.M. was walking home from school with E.M. and their sister when appellant approached them and stated he was going to fight A.M. However, appellant ran away and hid behind a wall when a woman stopped her car and told them to stop fighting. When the woman left, appellant came out from behind the wall and began punching A.M. causing him to fall to the ground. Appellant then began kicking A.M. As E.M. grabbed appellant in a headlock, to stop him from assaulting A.M., appellant began hitting E.M. as well. Appellant fled when a police officer arrived on the scene, but he was arrested later that day. During an in-custody interview, appellant admitted assaulting E.M. and A.M. claiming he was verbally provoked by them.
On November 24, 2008, the district attorney filed a petition charging appellant with robbery (count 1/Pen. Code, § 211), dissuading a witness (count 2/§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), misdemeanor assault (count 5/§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), resisting arrest (count 6/§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and two counts of misdemeanor battery (counts 3 & 4/§ 242).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
On December 16, 2008, the prosecutor amended count 1 to allege grand theft. Appellant then admitted counts 1, 3, 4, and 5, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts.
On January 6, 2009, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation under the supervision of the probation department and in the custody of his mother.
On September 15, 2009, appellant and two other male juveniles approached J.R. as he walked home from school. The trio told J.R. to hand over his wallet or they would “sock him.” One of the males then reached into J.R.’s pants pocket and took his wallet out. However, J.R. grabbed the wallet back and ran away fast enough that he was able to lose appellant and the other males. Later that day, appellant and the two other males approached A.F. and asked to use his cell phone. A.F. lent them his phone and the trio then took an iPod that was attached to his waist. As the trio left, they warned A.F. that if he “snitched, ” they would “jump” him. Appellant and the other males were arrested later that day.
On September 18, 2009, the district attorney filed a subsequent petition charging appellant with violating his probation (count 3/Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777) and two counts of robbery (counts 1 and 2).
On October 7, 2009, appellant admitted the robbery count charged in count 1 in exchange for the dismissal of the second robbery count and a guarantee that any confinement would be local. The court found count 3 true.
On October 30, 2009, defense counsel advised the court that appellant wanted to withdraw his plea. The court then appointed substitute counsel to investigate the matter.
On November 20, 2009, substitute counsel filed a motion to withdraw plea on appellant’s behalf. After the court heard and denied the motion, it committed appellant to the long-term program at the Bear Creek Academy.
Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.