Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. No. JL003378, David W. Moranda, Judge.
Carol L. Foster, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.
Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true an allegation, set forth in a juvenile wardship petition, that appellant, Jason M., committed second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)). Following the subsequent disposition hearing, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the juvenile court; placed him under the supervision of the probation department in the home of his mother; found him jointly and severally liable, with appellant’s co-participant in the instant offense, for victim restitution in the amount of $40; and ordered that appellant pay a restitution fine of $100.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
FACTS
The Instant Offense
City of Los Banos Police Officer Jesus Parras testified to the following: On June 12, 2009, during the course of an investigation of a report of the theft of beer from a convenience store (the store) in Los Banos on June 11, he received a copy of a surveillance video from the store manager. Office Parras viewed the video. It revealed the following: Two Hispanic males entered the store and walked directly to the back of the store where the beer is located. There, they grabbed two 18-packs of beer, walked back toward the register, and walked past the register and out the door, without making any attempt to pay.
All references to dates of events are to dates in 2009.
Officer Parras further testified that he recognized the two persons depicted in the video, from previous contacts with them, as appellant and Juan Z. (Juan).
Juan testified to the following: He participated in the theft of beer at the store on June 11. Appellant was not there. However, on June 12, when Juan talked with Officer Parras, he told the officer that on the night of June 11 he “hooked up” with appellant outside the store.
Appellant neither testified nor presented any witnesses.
Additional Factual Background
The probation report states that according to the police report, two 18-packs of Budweiser beer, valued at approximately $40, were stolen and not recovered.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.