Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0700163
Siggins, J.
Jarrett S. appeals juvenile court orders that found true an allegation that he received stolen property and that placed him on probation. Counsel has briefed no issues and asks that we review the record of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. After our review of the record, we affirm.
A petition alleged that 17-year-old Jarrett S. committed second degree burglary and had received stolen property. A contested jurisdictional hearing was held in July and August 2007.
The contested jurisdictional hearing had been continued at the request of Jarrett’s counsel to allow further defense investigation. The parties had also stipulated that the case be heard by a temporary judge.
James Beck testified that when he returned home from work, he saw his 18-year-old son Casey and their neighbor Jarrett in Beck’s garage. Jarrett ran away when he saw Beck, but Beck called him back. Meanwhile, Casey told his father the boys had a safe and he showed his father a safe that was placed in the bottom of a garbage can. Jarrett told Beck the safe belonged to his mother and that she asked him to open it because she no longer had the combination. Beck told the boys they should take the safe back to Jarrett’s house and he watched as they pushed the safe down the street and into Jarrett’s backyard. Beck did not believe the boys’ story and called the police.
Beck sent his 11-year-old son Matthew to Jarrett’s house to tell his brother Casey to come home. Matthew looked through the slats of the side fence into Jarrett’s backyard and saw Jarrett and Casey pull money and papers out of the safe. After they counted the money, they threw the safe over the fence. Matthew returned home and told his father what he had seen.
Darold Gentry testified he lived next to the Becks and kept a safe in his garage that contained about $2,500 in cash and various important documents. He discovered the safe was missing after he spoke with James Beck and he did not give Jarrett or Casey permission to take it. Police found the safe in the backyard of the house next to Jarrett’s. The safe was empty and there were pry marks next to the door of the safe. Nothing related to the safe was found in Jarrett’s house or backyard and police were unable to locate Casey Beck. Jarrett waived his Miranda rights and told police that Casey had asked him to look out for his father, but Jarrett denied that he helped Casey open the safe and denied the safe was ever in his backyard.
James Beck testified he gave Gentry $1,000 the day after the safe was stolen because “[he] just knew it was the right thing to do.”
Jarrett testified when this incident occurred, he was no longer friends with Casey because he believed Casey had “robbed” his family’s house several months earlier. Jarrett testified that he fled when James Beck arrived home, because Beck had previously told Jarrett he did not want him on his property. Jarrett acknowledged that he saw Casey with the safe and that Casey asked him to help open it, but Jarrett said he never saw Casey bring the safe into Jarrett’s backyard, never saw money or paperwork in the safe, and never had the safe in his possession.
The court found that James Beck, Matthew Beck, and Darold Gentry were “extremely credible witnesses,” and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the receiving stolen property allegation had been proven. The court dismissed the second degree burglary charge for lack of proof. At the dispositional hearing, Jarrett was adjudged a ward of the court and ordered to reside in the home of his parents. He was placed on probation with conditions including, inter alia, that he pay victim restitution in an amount to be determined, that he not associate with Casey Beck, and that, except while he is coming and going from his home, he stay 100 yards away from Gentry and his family. Jarrett timely appealed.
Jarrett entered a waiver pursuant to People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 before the dispositional hearing.
The probation order was amended at appellate counsel’s request to accurately reflect the court’s oral order, which included an exception to the stay-away order during those times when Jarrett is coming from or going to his home.
Jarrett was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding and there was no error in the dispositional order. Appellate counsel advised Jarrett of his right to file a supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of counsel’s opening brief, but no supplemental brief has been filed. Full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: Pollak, Acting P.J., Horner, J.
Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.