Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J35808
Jenkins, J.
This is an appeal from a dispositional order issued by the juvenile court after a contested jurisdictional hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 800, subd. (a).) Under that dispositional order, the juvenile court determined that appellant B.S., a minor, committed one count of felony second degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The juvenile court thus continued appellant as a ward of the court and committed him to juvenile hall for 100 days, giving him 40 days of custodial credits and permitting him to serve the remaining 60 days in the custody of his mother on electronic monitoring and under the supervision of the probation department.
After appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in which she raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) In doing so, counsel advises that appellant has been told of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende. For reasons set forth below, we agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
On March 21, 2008, a supplemental wardship petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that appellant had committed a felony violation of Penal Code section 459, second degree burglary (count 1).
The petition stemmed from events occurring on March 20, 2008, at Bethel High School in the City of Vallejo. Specifically, shortly before 9:00 a.m. on that day, one of the school’s physical education teachers, Jeff Turner, entered the boys’ locker room. At that time, the locker room doors were locked to keep students from entering because it was during a class period, when students were not supposed to be there. Turner thus used his key to enter.
Students are permitted to keep personal items in the individual lockers in the locker room, so often come and go between class periods, but they are not supposed to be in the locker room during class periods.
Upon entering, Turner noticed some students were in the locker room. Turner also noticed several locks were on the floor that appeared to have been cut, as well as loose items that included bolt cutters, open backpacks and clothing. Turner ordered one of the students to stop and sit down. Hearing other noises in the back of the locker room, Turner told that student to stay put, and ordered whomever was in the back to come out. Turner then told the student he had ordered to sit down to go into his office (which was located in the locker room), and then Turner used the office phone to call for additional staff support.
While Turner was on the phone, a student wearing a black hooded sweatshirt ran out the east door of the locker room. Turner thus went to the back door to block anyone else from exiting the locker room while he waited for help. While Turner was waiting, he continued to hear noises in the back of the locker room, and eventually two students, one of whom was appellant, came forward from that area. Turner ordered those students to sit on some nearby benches. Appellant initially complied with Turner’s order, but shortly thereafter ran from the locker room. When he did, Campus Supervisor Etienne Fortier, who had responded to Turner’s call for help, heard an object, later identified as a phone belonging to another student, fall from appellant’s person.
The police were called to the scene. A short time later, Police Officer Jeremy Huff arrived. Officer Huff, among other things, searched the locker room, observing several pairs of bolt cutters. Officer Huff did not fingerprint the bolt cutters because they had been handled by several different people by the time he arrived.
Officer Huff also searched and questioned appellant, who had returned to school with his mother at approximately 1:00 p.m. Officer Huff found no items on appellant’s person that had been reported stolen. Appellant told Officer Huff that he had gone to his second period class but, once there, had asked his teacher, Scott Heinecke, if he could leave to retrieve his backpack from the football team locker room. According to appellant, Heinecke said “yes,” and, while at the locker room, appellant was mistakenly sequestered by Turner, who believed appellant had committed theft. Appellant ran, he explained, after becoming scared when Turner mentioned calling the police. Appellant also stated that he had lost his phone that day, but he and his mother acknowledged the phone observed falling from his person was not his.
Officer Huff did not search appellant’s home for stolen items.
When questioned, appellant’s teacher, Heinecke, stated that he had not seen appellant on the day in question because appellant had not come to class.
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held April 14, 2008, at which Officer Huff, Turner, Heinecke, Fortier and several victims of the burglary testified. After the hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegation in the petition.
A dispositional hearing was held April 28, 2008, after which the juvenile court continued appellant as a ward of the court and committed him to juvenile hall for 100 days. Determining that appellant was entitled to 40 days of credit for time spent in custody, the juvenile court permitted him to serve the remaining 60 days on electronic monitoring in the custody of his mother and under the supervision of the probation department.
On May 20, 2008, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Discussion
Neither appointed counsel nor appellant has identified any issue for our review. Upon our own independent review of the entire record, we agree none exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant, represented by competent counsel, was found to have committed the felony crime of second degree burglary, and was committed to juvenile hall for 100 days, 60 days of which he was permitted to be released on electronic monitoring. This judgment was lawful. (Pen. Code, § 459; People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1041-1042.)
Having ensured appellant received adequate and effective appellate review, we thus affirm the juvenile court’s judgment. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 112-113.)
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J., Pollak, J.