Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. JJ15668, Donna Groman, Judge.
Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KITCHING, J.
C.V. appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered following the juvenile court’s findings he committed vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)), and petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)). The juvenile court ordered C.V. placed at home on probation. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts have been taken from the probation report.
a. Vandalism.
At approximately 10:25 a.m. on October 12, 2007, a police officer was dispatched to investigate a report that C.V. was writing graffiti on a wall. When the officer arrived at the location, he saw C.V. running down the street. The officer caught up with C.V. and detained him for further investigation. The person who had witnessed the young man writing the graffiti on the wall positively identified him as C.V.
b. Petty Theft.
At approximately 5:00 p.m. on November 12, 2007, C.V. was observed selecting a video game and DVD from a shelf in a Best Buy store. C.V. removed the packaging from the items and gave them to his companion, who put them in his right front pants pocket. C.V. and his companion then left the store without paying for the merchandise.
2. Procedural History.
In a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition filed December 18, 2007, it was alleged that, on or about October 12, 2007, C.V. committed the misdemeanor crime of vandalism in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a). The petition further alleged that C.V. “unlawfully and maliciously” defaced a wall not belonging to him with graffiti and “other inscribed material.” The monetary damage to the wall was alleged to be less than $400.
In a second petition, filed on January 10, 2008, it was alleged that, on or about November 12, 2007, C.V. committed the misdemeanor crime of petty theft in violation of Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a). It was further alleged that C.V. “did unlawfully steal, take, and carry away the personal property of another, to wit, Best Buy.”
At proceedings held on January 29, 2008, the prosecutor explained to C.V. that he was being charged with the misdemeanor of petty theft. The prosecutor then advised C.V. of his right to an adjudication, or court trial, his right to confront and cross examine the witnesses against him, his right to subpoena witnesses and present a defense, and his privilege against self-incrimination. After C.V. waived each of those rights, the juvenile court explained to C.V. that, after he admitted committing the crime of petty theft, he would be required to pay “fines and fees,” as well as restitution to Best Buy. In addition, the prosecutor informed C.V. that he could be placed at home on probation or, in the alternative, “placed in a foster or community home, or sent to camp for three [to] six months.” The prosecutor then addressed C.V. and stated, “The maximum time you could spend in custody for this misdemeanor petty theft is six months, however, due to your admission today, the only agreement is that we transfer this matter tomorrow to [another] department . . . for sentencing disposition. There is no agreement as to what your sentence will be. [¶] Do you understand, sir?” C.V. responded, “Yes.” C.V. then admitted that, on or about November 12, 2007, he violated Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor, commonly known as petty theft. C.V. waived time for disposition of the matter so that it could be determined with the petition filed against him for vandalism.
Disposition of the petition filed on December 18, 2007, alleging C.V. committed vandalism, took place at proceedings held on February 20, 2008. Initially, the prosecutor addressed C.V. and stated, “[I]t’s been alleged that you committed vandalism causing less than $400 damage on a wall that was not owned by you. Your attorney has indicated you wish to admit to that charge with the understanding that your attorney is going to try to get you home, but the court [has] indicated that you’re probably going to a suitable placement.” C.V. responded that, “[w]ith that understanding,” he nevertheless wished to admit the charge of vandalism.
C.V. waived his right to a trial, his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, his right to subpoena witnesses and present a defense, and his privilege against self-incrimination. The prosecutor then explained to C.V. that it was likely he was going to be placed on probation with various terms and conditions. However, the prosecutor suggested that the juvenile court could consider other alternatives such as placement in a group home or camp for the one year maximum term of confinement for the offense. After informing C.V. that he would have to pay a fine, as well as restitution, and that if he was on probation or parole for any other offense or offenses, his admission would place him in violation of that probation or parole, C.V. admitted that, on or about October 12, 2007, he committed the crime of vandalism.
Disposition of the petition filed on December 18, 2007, alleging that C.V. committed vandalism in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a), as well as disposition of the petition filed January 10, 2008, alleging he committed petty theft in violation of Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a), was continued to April 4, 2008. At that proceeding, the juvenile court placed C.V. at home on probation under certain terms and conditions, including that both C.V. and his mother obtain counseling.
C.V. filed a timely notice of appeal from the juvenile court’s order on April 9, 2008.
This court appointed counsel to represent C.V. on appeal on June 16, 2008.
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 August 26, 2008, the clerk of this court advised C.V. 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.
REVIEW ON APPEAL
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied C.V.’s counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed.
We concur: KLEIN, P. J., ALDRICH, J.