Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV32933
Rushing, P.J.
After appellant E.R., a minor documented to be a member of the Norteno clique known as Varrio Morgan Lomas, attacked the victim at a social gathering involving drinking, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office filed a juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). The petition alleged two felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1 [stabbing implement], count 2 [bottle].) The petition further alleged that the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)), and that the minor personally inflicted great bodily injury. (Pen Code § 12022.7, subd. (a).) After the minor waived his right to a hearing on the petition and admitted the felony assault in count one and the gang enhancement, the district attorney dismissed the remaining count and enhancements. The appellant then waived time for disposition and entered a waiver pursuant to People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749. At the contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered that appellant be committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice, and set his maximum time of confinement at nine years, eight months. Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, the court exercised its discretion to order the maximum confinement not exceed three years, eight months. The court also imposed a variety of fines and fees and awarded custody credits of 281 days. The minor filed a timely notice of appeal from this order.
On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified the minor of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed and we have received nothing from the minor. Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record on appeal. We conclude that there are no arguable issues. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.