From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re D.S.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Jan 30, 2008
No. B199643 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2008)

Opinion


In re D. S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D. S., Defendant and Appellant. B199643 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Seventh Division January 30, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. FJ39903,Charles Q. Clay III, Judge.

Melanie K. Dorian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WILEY, J.

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

The juvenile court sustained one count of a petition alleging D. S. (the minor) had committed second degree robbery, declared the minor a ward of the court and ordered him into suitable placement, subject to certain terms and conditions of probation.

According to the evidence at the jurisdiction hearing, as Sergio C. was walking home, he was cornered by the minor and two other boys. They stood about a foot away from Sergio C.; the minor was standing to Sergio C.’s right and apparently never spoke during the encounter. One boy asked what Sergio C. had in his pockets and told Sergio C. to fight the minor if he wanted to be released. When Sergio C. did not reply, one boy removed some keys and money from Sergio C.’s pockets, before fleeing with the other boy and the minor. Sergio C. did not resist because he was afraid he would be hurt.

We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On November 26, 2007, we advised the minor he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied the minor’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The order is affirmed.

We concur: WOODS, Acting P. J. ZELON, J.


Summaries of

In re D.S.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Jan 30, 2008
No. B199643 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2008)
Case details for

In re D.S.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D. S., Defendant and Appellant.

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

Date published: Jan 30, 2008

Citations

No. B199643 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2008)