From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re C.H.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Sep 19, 2008
No. A120250 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2008)

Opinion


In re C.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.H., Defendant and Appellant. A120250 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division September 19, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ07006979.

Jones, P.J.

C.H. (appellant) appeals from a disposition entered after the juvenile court found true allegations that she committed one count of felony robbery, (Pen. Code, § 211) and three counts of misdemeanor battery (§ 242). Her counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that she had the right to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.

All further section references will be to the Penal Code.

On May 16, 2007, Andrea Gallien and Jessica Keele were sitting on the curb of a street in Livermore when they saw a car drive toward them. Appellant got out of the car, approached Gallien and said, “So you’re saying I’m pregnant?” Appellant then struck and pushed Gallien. During the fight, Gallien dropped her purse. Keele went to pick it up. As she did, appellant went over to Keele and demanded the purse. When Keele refused, appellant hit her in the face and took the purse.

Based on these facts, on May 18, 2007, a petition was filed alleging appellant came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because she committed a felony robbery and a misdemeanor battery.

On July 25, 2007, Mandy Harrigan was at her friend Tessa’s apartment when appellant banged on the door and shouted, “Mandy, Tess, get out here!” Harrigan went outside. When she did, appellant hit her in the eye. Harrigan retreated back into the apartment. Subsequently, she went outside to sit in a parking lot. About 10 minutes later, appellant found Harrigan in the parking lot and hit her again.

Based on these facts, an amended petition was filed alleging that appellant had committed two additional counts of misdemeanor battery.

The case proceeded to a contested jurisdictional hearing where the prosecutor presented the evidence we have set forth above. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found all four allegations in the amended petition to be true. The court also found the maximum period of appellant’s confinement to be five years, six months.

At disposition the court ruled appellant could continue to reside with her grandparents but placed her on probation under the supervision of a probation officer. Among other things, the court also ordered appellant to complete 40 hours of community service and to pay a $100 restitution fine.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The court found the allegations of the petition to be true and its findings are supported by substantial evidence. We see no error in the disposition. The court did not commit any prejudicial evidentiary errors. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.

We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

The disposition is affirmed.

We concur: Simons, J., Reardon, J.

Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

In re C.H.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Sep 19, 2008
No. A120250 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2008)
Case details for

In re C.H.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.H., Defendant and Appellant.

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Date published: Sep 19, 2008

Citations

No. A120250 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2008)