Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, Super. Ct. No. 06CEJ601189-2, John F. Vogt, Judge.
James M. Kehoe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.
It was alleged in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) filed February 15, 2008, that appellant J.F., a minor, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and that he personally used a firearm in the commission of that offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). In a supplemental wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777) filed February 22, 2008, it was alleged, inter alia, that by committing the robbery, appellant violated his probation granted in a previous wardship proceeding.
On March 21, 2008, at the jurisdiction hearing, the court found the robbery allegation true; adjudged appellant a ward of the court; and found the enhancement allegation not true. It was agreed the supplemental petition was not before the court at the jurisdiction hearing.
On May 20, 2008, at the disposition hearing, the court ordered appellant committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice; declared appellant’s maximum period of physical confinement to be two years; and dismissed the probation-violation allegation.
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
Joaquin Espinosa testified to the following. At approximately 12:45 a.m. on January 13, 2008, he drove to the apartment complex where he lived, parked his car, and got out. He was walking toward the trunk of his car when two individuals, one of whom Espinosa identified in court as appellant, approached him. Appellant demanded money and pointed a handgun at Espinosa. The other person stood a “few steps away from both of us.” Espinosa stated that he did not have any money. Appellant then asked what Espinosa had “in the front” of the car. Espinosa put his keys, wallet,and cell phone down on the trunk of the car, at which point appellant “grabbed” the items.
Fresno Police Detective Ramon Gines testified to the following. Gines showed Espinosa a photo lineup containing appellant’s photograph, and Espinosa “pointed to [the photograph of appellant] and stated ... that’s the one.” Detective Gines placed appellant’s photo in the lineup because “[appellant’s] fingerprint had been located inside of the victim’s stolen vehicle, which had been stolen the same night as the robbery.”
Appellant testified he did not rob Espinosa and knew nothing about the robbery. Appellant’s mother testified that appellant lives with her, and on the night of the robbery, he came home at approximately 10:45 p.m. and was home the rest of the night.
Appellant was 17 years of age at the time of the instant offense.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.