Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ34442.
DOI TODD, Acting P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
Andrew D., a minor, appeals from the order declaring him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 by reason of his having committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The trial court committed him to short term camp, with a maximum term of confinement of five years eight months.
This matter arose from the following facts. On August 11, 2007, appellant took a bicycle locked to a pole near a restaurant in Long Beach. When the owner, Christopher Walker (Walker), saw his bicycle being taken, he ran out of the restaurant toward appellant and asked him what he was doing. Appellant punched Walker in the face, causing him to fall to the ground, where appellant stomped on his head, causing injuries.
Appellant then rode away on Walker’s bicycle. A witness to the incident in a car approached Walker and gave him a ride. They followed appellant to a residence. During the pursuit, Walker never lost sight of appellant. He subsequently led police to the residence.
Within 20 minutes of the theft, Walker was taken to a field showup, where he was shown eight to 10 suspects. He positively identified appellant, who was displayed in handcuffs. Walker had had a good look at appellant when Walker first ran out of the restaurant and confronted him and again when appellant looked back at him, as he rode away on Walker’s bicycle.
Police searched appellant after his arrest and confiscated $24 in small bills and 10 baggies containing a white substance and a larger piece of plastic containing a greater amount of the substance, later determined to contain a total of 5.68 grams of methamphetamine. A drug recognition expert opined that the drugs were possessed for sale.
After being arrested and Mirandized, appellant admitted possessing narcotics, which he claimed to have found on the street, but denied possessing them for sale. He admitted being present at the restaurant where the bicycle was taken, but said he was not involved.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
Appellant presented an alibi defense, his brother testifying that he was with appellant all day, and at a barbecue during the time of the theft. Appellant’s grandmother testified that she gave him $20 on the day of the incident.
Before the adjudication hearing, appellant moved to suppress the field showup evidence on the ground that it was an unduly suggestive identification, thereby violating appellant’s due process rights. At the suppression hearing, the following evidence was presented: Before going to the residence where eight to 10 suspects in the theft were detained, Walker described to police that the perpetrator was a male Hispanic, with a shaved head, wearing a baggy T-shirt and shorts. After the suspects were detained, Walker viewed them, one at a time, after receiving the field showup admonitions. All of the suspects were handcuffed and were male Hispanics, several with shaved heads. Appellant was the first suspect shown. He was 15 years old, while the other suspects were between 18 and 24. All of the other suspects were taller than appellant, but they were all similarly dressed. Walker said he was positive that appellant was the perpetrator.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised.
On January 14, 2008, 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 appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order appealed from is affirmed.