Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KJ24958, Robert Ambrose, Temporary Judge.
Kiana Sloan-Hillier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
KLEIN, P. J.
Clyde T. (Clyde T.) appeals from the order continuing wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered following the juvenile court’s finding he committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The juvenile court ordered a previous order placing Clyde T. at home on probation to remain in full force and effect. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts.
On December 4, 2006, fourteen-year-old A.P. was in the ninth grade at Fremont High School. Although it was the lunch hour, at approximately 12:30 p.m. that day A.P. was in a classroom on the third floor of the “ ‘T’ ” building doing an assignment. A.P. left the classroom at approximately 12:40 p.m. and was walking down the hallway when he was approached by a group of approximately 12 students, including Clyde T. One of the students told another student to ask A.P. what he had in his pockets. Clyde T., who was standing closest to A.P., then stepped forward and searched A.P.’s pockets. As he did so, the other students in the group watched to be certain that no teachers or security officers were approaching. Clyde T. found A.P.’s Ipod, took it from A.P.’s pocket, then told his friends that he had “found something.” A.P. allowed Clyde T. to go through his pockets because he “couldn’t do anything. They were 12 and [he] was afraid they might do something to [him].”
Clyde T. and his friends began to walk away from the area and A.P. started to follow. However, one of the students told A.P. “not to follow them.” A.P. then went to tell a security officer what had happened. In describing the individual who had robbed him, A.P. told the officer that the robber had been wearing a colored head band and had two earrings. Another student had on a white sweater and blue pants.
Roman Del Rosario (Del Rosario) is the assistant principal at Fremont High School. On the day after the robbery, Clyde T. asked Del Rosario to write a letter stating that he, Clyde T., had been with Rosario during the lunch hour on December 4. Rosario testified that Clyde T. was with him in his office on the first floor of the “ ‘T’ ” building for the first 15 minutes of the lunch hour, from 11:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
Los Angeles School Police Officer Ben Covarrubias (Covarrubias) investigated the robbery. The description of the robbery suspects given to Covarrubias indicated that three or four of the males had been wearing dark clothing: “black shorts, black shirt, and [a] white shirt with gray in it.” Covarrubias could not recall whether A.P. had told him that the robber was wearing any kind of hat, head gear or jewelry. Covarrubias stated, “It is not in the report so I don’t know if he did or didn’t.”
As part of his investigation, Covarrubias had spoken with Clyde T. Clyde T. initially told Covarrubias that he had been present when the robbery was committed, but that he did not know who took the Ipod. Later, Clyde T. told the officer that, at the time of the robbery, he had been in the vice-principal’s office.
2. Procedural History.
On February 2, 2007, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that on or about December 4, 2006, Clyde T. committed second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211, a felony.
Hearings were held on the matter on April 11, April 26 and April 27, 2007. At the proceedings held on April 11, defense counsel requested that the matter be tried before a jury. Counsel argued that Clyde T. was 17 years old and that if he were found to have committed the alleged offense, it would amount to a “strike” under the “Three Strikes” law, “which would have lifetime consequences beyond the term of the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” The juvenile court denied the motion, stating, “The court believes that in a juvenile court that the trials are to the court and not to a jury, and it is for another court down the line to make a ruling otherwise.”
On April 26, 2007, following the presentation of evidence and argument, the juvenile court sustained the petition. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Clyde T. participated in the robbery of A.P.
With regard to disposition of the matter, the prosecutor pointed out that Clyde T. was already on probation. When he was 13 years old, Clyde T. had been found to have committed assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 245. After the juvenile court found Clyde T. had committed the assault, the court had placed Clyde T. at home on probation with his aunt, a Los Angeles Police Officer who lived in Pomona. Clyde T. had violated a condition of that probation by leaving Pomona and going to Los Angeles where his mother lived. The prosecutor stated, “The probation officer’s concern seems to be basically the fact that he left Pomona, was doing relatively well, joined the R.O.T.C. program [there] and left without telling the probation officer, and then went back to Los Angeles and pretty quickly started having problems.” After further discussion, disposition of the matter was continued to the following day.
At proceedings held on April 27, 2007, the juvenile court ordered that the previous order placing Clyde T. at home on probation with his aunt in Pomona was to remain in full force and effect. The court put Clyde T. on “camp surrender.” The juvenile court explained, “That means if he violates [any of the terms of his] probation,” he will be placed in camp with a maximum confinement time of five years. The juvenile court then informed Clyde T. of the terms and conditions of his probation.
Clyde T. filed a timely notice of appeal on April 27, 2007.
This court appointed counsel to represent Clyde T. on appeal on August 13, 2007.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
By notice filed November 19, 2007, the clerk of this court advised Clyde T. to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
APPELLATE REVIEW
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Clyde T.’s counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284 [145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order continuing wardship is affirmed.
We concur: CROSKEY, J., KITCHING, J.