Opinion
B230550
10-12-2011
In re Rodrigo B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODRIGO B., Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Esther R. Sorkin and Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PJ47272)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Morton Rochman, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Esther R. Sorkin and Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Rodrigo B. appeals from an order entered after the juvenile court found that he had committed first degree robbery. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 31, 2010, police detained appellant, then 17 years old, for first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) after he asked to borrow Carlo Cardenas's cell phone on the bus and then attempted to flee with it. The People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against him, which appellant denied. The People later amended the petition to add a count of attempted first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664), which appellant also denied.
At the January 21, 2011 adjudication hearing, the juvenile court sustained the count of first degree robbery and declared the offense to be a felony. The court dismissed the remaining count of attempted first degree robbery, declared appellant a ward of the court and ordered him into suitable placement. The court calculated the total maximum theoretical period of confinement as nine years, and it awarded appellant 32 days of custody credit. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On May 31, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appellant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
JACKSON, J.
We concur:
WOODS, Acting P. J.
ZELON, J.