Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court of Ventura County No. 2007032448 Manuel Covarrubias, Judge
Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
PERREN, J.
Moses M. appeals from the dispositional order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) based on his commission of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)). The court ordered a suitable placement and set appellant's maximum term of confinement at nine years in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities.
Appellant was three weeks shy of his 18th birthday when he committed the carjacking offense. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on August 23, 2007, Rigoberto Ambriz was getting into his van at his residence in Oxnard when he encountered appellant, appellant's 15-year-old brother Christopher M., and 15-year-old Christopher A. Christopher M. approached Ambriz, lifted up his shirt to reveal what appeared to be a knife in his waistband, and said, "[g]ive me the keys, ese." Christopher M. grabbed the keys from Ambriz's hand and ran to the van. As Ambriz ran away, Christopher M. and Christopher A. drove away in his van while appellant left in a truck that was parked nearby. When the stolen van was located approximately a half hour later, the three assailants were found tagging a nearby wall. After waiving his Miranda rights, appellant admitted his participation in the carjacking.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that we independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On January 22, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter raising any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. He did not respond.
Having examined the entire record, we are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.) The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., COFFEE, J.