Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ1001601801
Richman, J.
Appellant D.D. was the subject of a wardship petition filed in the Alameda County Juvenile Court. The petition alleged that appellant committed two counts of robbery, one count of attempted robbery, and one count of possessing stolen property. After appellant admitted one of the robbery counts, the remaining counts were dismissed with the proviso that they could be considered in determining appellant’s responsibility for making restitution. At the dispositional hearing conducted on December 14, 2010, the juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward; admitted him to probation; and placed him in the custody of the probation office for out-of-home placement. Restitution as to two of the three victims was reserved. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the dispositional order.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he advises that he finds no arguable issues to present, and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requests that this court conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he elected not to do so.
The only details of the circumstances concerning the count which appellant admitted are provided by the incident report prepared by Fremont police. According to the report, on the evening of November 21, 2010, appellant was one of three youths who approached two men, Dennis Woo and Ryan Jiang, who were standing outside a restaurant. One of the youths, not appellant, showed a handgun and demanded that Woo and Jiang “empty [their] pockets.” Woo and Jiang surrendered their wallets and a cell phone to the gunman, who handed them to appellant. Appellant went through the wallets. Jiang’s wallet was returned, but Woo’s wallet and cell phone were not. The three youths ran to a vehicle and left the scene.
Our independent review discloses that appellant was at all times ably represented by independent counsel. Appellant was over 16 years of age at the time of the offense, and his admission obviated the need for any further action at the jurisdictional hearing. Appellant’s admission was preceded by the appropriate admonitions and advisement of rights. The juvenile court took account of all appropriate factors in reaching the placement disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725.5; In re James R. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 413, 432.) None of the conditions of probation was inappropriate. We have identified no issues that require briefing.
The dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: Kline, P.J., Lambden, J.