Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, No. JW119962-01, Jon Edward Stuebbe, Judge.
Carol L. Foster, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
In February 2009, appellant was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and placed on three years’ probation, after he admitted an allegation set forth in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) that he unlawfully possessed marijuana for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359).
In February 2010, a supplemental juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 777) was filed in which it was alleged appellant committed two counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)) and individual counts of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5 subd. (c)), unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm (§ 12031, subd. (a)(2)(F)), actively participating in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), and violating probation. It was also alleged that in committing the two assaults, he acted for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§186.22, subd. (b)).
Except as otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On May 13, 2010, following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the court found that appellant committed one count of second degree robbery; as lesser included offenses of the two alleged counts of assault with a firearm, that he committed two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; and that he violated probation. The court found not true the remaining substantive offense allegations and the section 186.22, subdivision (b) allegations.
On May 28, 2010, at the disposition hearing, the court ordered appellant continued on probation for a period not to exceed five years; committed him to the Kern Crossroads Facility; and declared his maximum term of physical confinement to be six years eight months, less 47 days of credit for time served.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief, which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court 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. We will affirm.
FACTS
Angel B. testified to the following: On February 14, 2010 (February 14), at approximately 10:00 p.m., he and three other minors, including Nallely V. (Nallely) and Ivan V. (Ivan), were walking to a fast-food restaurant when another group of minors approached them. “They, ” i.e., the group that approached Angel and his friends, “asked for money, ” and one reached into Angel’s pocket and took his cell phone. One of these persons produced a gun and pointed it at Angel’s face and another struck Angel once on his left side. At that point, Angel and his friends ran off, and Nallely “flagg[ed] down” some police officers.
Ivan testified to the following: At approximately 10:00 p.m. on February 14, approximately ten people “ran up behind” Ivan and his friend, and “started punching us.” One of the attackers was appellant, who punched Ivan three or four times in the back of the head.
City of Bakersfield Police Officer Isaac Aleman testified that in responding to a report of a robbery at approximately 10:00 p.m. on February 14, he made contact with Angel and two other victims, and appellant, who was in custody, and that appellant told him the following: Appellant “met up with about seven other male subjects”; “they all approached a subject who was wearing a purple shirt” who, the officer surmised, was Angel, who was wearing a purple shirt; and one of appellant’s companions “produced a firearm, pointed it at [Angel], ” and “told him to … give them his stuff.” Appellant “observed, ” but did not “participate” in, the robbery and the assault of Angel.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.