Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV34587
Premo, J.
On or about September 10, 2008, the minor E.B was arrested for vandalizing a car. The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (a section 602 petition), alleging a felony violation of Penal Code section 594, later amended to allege a misdemeanor only. The probation department filed a concurrent petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, alleging that the minor had violated his probation. The minor had been placed on juvenile probation in August 2008, after the juvenile court sustained two other section 602 petitions.
The minor waived his right to a hearing on the Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 petition and admitted the allegations contained in it. On October 9, 2008, a contested jurisdictional hearing was held in connection with the vandalism allegation. The juvenile court found the allegation to be true, sustained the section 602 petition, and continued the minor on juvenile probation. The minor has timely appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent the minor in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. Counsel has listed one possible appellate issue (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744), which is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the minor knew the wrongfulness of his act. (Pen. Code, § 26.) We notified the minor of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from the minor.
I. Summary of the Evidence
On September 10, 2008, Desiree Holguin returned to her home in a mobile home park around 9:15 p.m. Holguin went inside for awhile and when she came out to move her car, she saw that it had red paint splashed on the hood, the front, and the passenger side. A police officer arrived to investigate, and Holguin identified the minor, who lived two doors down, as a possible suspect. The officer observed red stains, similar to the stains on the car, on the ground between Holguin’s home and the minor’s, on a planter in front of the minor’s home, on the minor’s hands, and on the floor of the minor’s bedroom. The minor was combative and boisterous. The officer asked the minor why he had done what he had done to Holguin’s car and the minor told him it was “peer pressure.” The officer arrested the minor and, as he walked the minor by Holguin standing outside, the minor called out to her, “You fucking bitch.” The minor’s 12-year-old sister testified that she had seen the minor’s friend splash red food coloring on the car.
II. Conclusion
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the whole record and have concluded there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.