Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J39071
McGuiness, P.J.
Sixteen-year-old A.S. (appellant) appeals from a dispositional order placing her on probation. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the order.
Factual and Procedural Background
On March 25, 2008, the Contra Costa County district attorney filed an original wardship petition alleging appellant committed first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)) on March 7, 2008. On June 9, 2008, the district attorney amended the petition to add an allegation that appellant committed another first degree residential burglary on March 4, 2008.
March 4, 2008, incident
At a contested jurisdictional hearing, V.W. testified that on March 4, 2008, she returned home from work and noticed that the glass in her garage window was gone and her front door was “cracked” open. She called the police as she walked inside her house and noticed that her daughter’s PlayStation 2 was missing. Her daughter’s room “got [her] attention” because it “had been torn apart.” The “bed was all messed up, and things were pulled out of the closet,... like it had been ransacked, which was... not how [her daughter] leaves her room.” Her daughter’s handheld PSP player (a videogame), her tennis shoes, and some of her video games were missing. V.W. looked in the entryway closet and found the glass from her garage window stacked up in the closet. She “thought [it] was really bizarre” that “the pieces [of glass] that came out of the garage window were actually stacked up in that closet.” The police later collected the glass. She testified she did not know or recognize appellant and had not given her permission to enter her house that day or to take any items.
Police officer Alexander Abetkov testified that on March 4, 2008, at about 5:12 p.m., he responded to a house in Hercules “for a call of a residential burglary that had occurred.” He collected some window pane glass from inside a closet after the resident of the house pointed them out to him, and he processed seven pieces of the glass for fingerprints. He noted the glass was approximately the same size as the glass that was missing from a window in the garage. He applied fingerprint powder to the glass and lifted four latent fingerprints he found onto white cards. He submitted the cards to another police officer who booked them into evidence for further processing.
Stephanie Souza, a fingerprint examiner for the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department Crime Laboratory, testified she is authorized to examine, compare and make identifications based on fingerprints. She received fingerprint cards from the Hercules police department and compared them to “known” fingerprints, which are fingerprints that are intentionally recorded (with the person’s consent and cooperation) and are from a known source. She testified that the fingerprint cards matched appellant’s fingerprints, which had been collected by the Richmond police department on October 10, 2007.
March 7, 2008, incident
J.S. testified he was home on March 7, 2008, at about 10:30 a.m., looking outside a window, when he noticed a girl and two boys playing in front of his neighbor’s house across the street. He continued to watch as the girl walked up to a dog that was inside his neighbor’s house. The girl tapped on the window as if to get the dog’s attention and to “see if the dog [would] bite” or “if the dog was violent.” The boys ran around to the side of the house and went inside the fence. J.S. called the police. He testified he watched the girl and the boys for about ten minutes before he called the police and was “75 percent sure” the girl he saw on March 7, 2008, was appellant.
M.G. testified he left for work at about 6:30 a.m. on March 7, 2008. He returned home at about 3 p.m. after the police called to tell him he needed to come home. When he returned, he noticed that “everything,” including a blanket and his son’s hats, was on the floor and “the laptop,” a digital camera, and “everything in the backpack” was missing. Several days after the incident, the police called him and returned the digital camera to him. M.G. further testified there is a doggy door in his house that gives his dog access in and out of the house. The doggy door is small “but if guys are skinny, they get in from there.” He testified he did not know appellant and had not given her permission to be in his house or yard that day.
Police officer Aaron Tan testified he was dispatched to a house in Hercules on March 7, 2008, for a “residential burglary in progress.” He walked to a gate on the east side of the house and was trying to figure out how to open the padlocked gate to gain access to the backyard when he saw a person, whom he identified in court as appellant, “r[u]n out from behind the house.” Appellant “appeared startled.” Tan told appellant he was a police officer and told her to stop, but she ran back towards the back side of the house. Tan kicked the gate open to gain entry into the backyard but “was met with a large brown and white Pit-Bull dog which caused [him] to retreat and close the gate.” He was not able to pursue appellant, and “that was the last [he] saw of her” that day. Two or three days later, another police officer asked Tan to come to a school to see if he could identify a girl who was in custody as the person he saw on the day of the burglary. Tan went to the school, saw appellant, and positively identified her.
The juvenile court sustained the petition as to both counts of first degree burglary. On December 24, 2008, appellant’s case was transferred to the juvenile court in Solano County. At a February 24, 2009, dispositional hearing, the juvenile court declared wardship, placed appellant in her parents’ care, and granted probation under various conditions, including participating in a theft offender program, submitting to a curfew, attending school regularly, and completing 100 hours of community service. The juvenile court also ordered appellant to pay a restitution fine and victim restitution. Appellant’s maximum term of confinement was set at seven years four months, with 34 days of credit.
Discussion
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that appellant committed first degree residential burglary on March 4, 2008, and March 7, 2008. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the petition as to both counts. Further, there is no indication probation was improper in this case. Appellant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings and appeared at each hearing. She has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal. We have reviewed the “entire record in this case and have found no arguable issues therein.” (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
Disposition
The dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: Pollak, J., Jenkins, J.