From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Desiree W.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Jun 28, 2011
No. A131106 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2011)

Opinion


In re DESIREE W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, DESIREE W., Defendant and Appellant A131106 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division June 28, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1001711

JONES, P.J.

Desiree W. (appellant) appeals from a disposition entered after she admitted committing grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c) ), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). 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 exercise that right.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

On December 11, 2010, shortly before 1:00 a.m., appellant and two others attacked two women who were on the campus of San Francisco State University. During the course of the attack, appellant pulled one woman to the ground, kicked her in the head several times, and took her cell phone.

Based on these facts, a petition was filed alleging appellant came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because she had committed several criminal offenses.

The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant admitted the offenses we have set forth above. In exchange other counts and allegations were dismissed.

At disposition, the court ordered appellant to participate in a program at juvenile hall.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Before accepting appellant’s admission, the court made sure she understood the constitutional rights she was waiving. The court also made sure appellant understood the consequences of her admission. The disposition imposed was consistent with the plea agreement. We see no error in the sentence. 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., BRUINIERS, J.


Summaries of

In re Desiree W.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Jun 28, 2011
No. A131106 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2011)
Case details for

In re Desiree W.

Case Details

Full title:In re DESIREE W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law THE PEOPLE…

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

Date published: Jun 28, 2011

Citations

No. A131106 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2011)