Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. OJ05002404
Banke, J.
J.B. (the minor) appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders made by the juvenile court. The court sustained one count of a wardship petition, finding the minor committed a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), continued the minor’s probation and maintained an out-of-home placement order. The minor’s appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to the minor, result in reversal or modification of the orders. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The minor was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
Background
The victim, P.S., testified that on September 6, 2010, as he was standing outside an Emeryville Burger King with his two younger brothers, he was approached by the minor, who he knew as “Boo, ” and another juvenile, who he knew as “Dree.” P.S. recognized the minor because, at one time, they had both attended McClymonds High School. As the minor and “Dree” approached P.S., they spoke to him in what P.S. agreed could be called “challenging words.” A minute later someone else grabbed P.S. from behind, pulled his arms to his back and held them there. “Dree” then opened a knife with a six-inch long blade and held it to P.S.’s chest. With P.S. so restrained and threatened, the minor rifled through P.S.’s pocket, removing $50 in cash and a Clipper transit card. The person holding P.S. from behind removed a watch from P.S.’s wrist and said “Ghost Town, ” which P.S. understood referred to a gang. Upon release, P.S. caught sight of the person who had grabbed him from behind. He had seen him once before, and P.S.’s friends identified him as “Gary.” P.S. immediately called 911 on his cell phone and reported the robbery.
Within two minutes, Officer Warren Williams approached, and was flagged down by P.S. and his brothers. Other officers arrived shortly thereafter. The three assailants came out of the Burger King; the minor and “Dree” ran off in one direction, Gary walked away in another. Officer Williams, with gun drawn, ordered Gary to lie down on the sidewalk, which he did. He was arrested, and a search yielded only a small amount of money. Gary also did not have P.S.’s watch. The minor was apprehended shortly thereafter, and P.S. identified him in the field. The third assailant was not apprehended.
Shortly before the robbery, P.S. had been assaulted while picking his sister up from school, and the assailants had taken his cell phone, a Sidekick LX that had a crack in the lower part of the back. During the robbery, P.S. saw the minor holding the Sidekick. Officer Jeremy McBroom testified the cell phone was recovered when the minor was arrested.
P.S. denied being in a gang, denied being present when the minor was previously beaten up, denied ever texting or messaging photos of himself holding a gun (he was on probation for possessing a firearm next to his school), and denied ever telling anyone the minor had not robbed him.
The minor’s cousin, A.H., testified P.S. was in a gang, he had texted her a photo showing him holding a gun, had told her the minor “wasn’t the one that robbed him, ” and was present when the minor was beaten up. She also testified P.S. had threatened to kill the minor.
During closing arguments, the defense argued P.S. was not a credible witness. The prosecution argued he was credible. The court found the minor committed robbery as charged in count 1 of the petition, but found reasonable doubt as to count 2, possession of stolen property.
In preparation for the disposition hearing, the minor told his probation officer that while he knew who had committed the robbery, he did not participate and was inside the Burger King eating with friends. He stated he could not understand the court’s finding against him “after proving the victim lied about some things.” The instant offense was the minor’s fifth referral to the Probation Department within 10 months. “Given his dishonesty and past [poor probation] performance, ” his probation officer doubted he “can now follow the terms and conditions of probation.” Nevertheless, the probation officer was “willing to give the minor one final opportunity to prove otherwise.” Accordingly, the Probation Department recommended the minor remain on probation, with additional conditions, including attending Weekend Training Academy, counseling, and a curfew. Over the prosecution’s objection and request for a DJJ commitment, the juvenile court adopted the probation recommendation and continued the minor’s probation on additional terms and conditions.
Discussion
Upon review of the record, we discern no arguable issues. There are no search and seizure or identification issues. The minor was ably represented by counsel at all times during the juvenile proceedings. He had a full and fair opportunity to present his case to the juvenile court. The court’s finding that the minor committed robbery as alleged in count 1 of the wardship petition is amply supported by the record. (See In re Cesar V. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 989, 994-995 [juvenile court findings are reviewed under substantial evidence standard].) The court also acted well within its discretion in continuing minor’s probation on additional terms and conditions. (See In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1142 [juvenile court has broad discretion in imposing terms and conditions of probation].)
Disposition
The juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J., Margulies, J.