Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C-157056-02
Margulies, J.
John M. appeals from the juvenile court’s finding that he committed a robbery and from the court’s dispositional order of October 11, 2006. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.
Procedural History
Appellant, born in May 1992, was declared a dependent of the court on November 24, 1992. He remained a dependent of the court as of July 14, 2006. On that date, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that on or about May 20, 2006, appellant had committed felony attempted robbery against Nicholas W. (Pen. Code, § 664/211; count one) and felony assault against Ashley R. by means of force and fear (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count two). On July 27, 2006, at appellant’s request, the court ordered that an assessment be made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.1, and set the matter for further hearing on August 29, 2006.
On August 11, 2006, an amended petition was filed that added allegations that on or about August 9, 2006, appellant had committed felony robbery against Hameed Faizi (Pen. Code, § 211; count three) and misdemeanor false representation by falsely identifying himself to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9; count four). On August 14, 2006, appellant appeared in court and was detained. The August 29 hearing on the Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.1 assessment was vacated.
Appellant’s request for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.1 assessment was later withdrawn. According to a dispositional report filed by the probation department on September 26, 2006, “Social Services has already concluded [that Welfare and Institutions Code section] 602 jurisdiction is more appropriate than Dependency.”
On August 21, 2006, appellant’s detention was continued and the matter was set for a jurisdictional hearing on August 29, 2006. On August 29, the matter was continued to September 1, 2006. On August 30, the petition was amended a second time to add allegations that, on or about February 6, 2006, appellant had committed a felony lewd and lascivious act upon K.P., a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); count five), participated in a felony act of oral copulation with K.P. (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(1); count six), and made a misdemeanor obscene telephone call with threats to inflict injury on K.P. and her family (Pen. Code, § 653m, subd. (a); count seven).
On September 1, 2006, counts one and four were dismissed and appellant admitted count two. Evidence was presented regarding count three and the court found the allegation to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. On September 12, 2006, appellant admitted to an amended count five, which was amended to allege a felony sexual battery (Pen. Code § 243.4, subd. (a)), and counts six and seven were dismissed with restitution reserved.
On September 12, 2006, the court ordered preparation of a guidance clinic evaluation, which was submitted to the court just before the dispositional hearing on October 11. The evaluation found that appellant’s recent behaviors had demonstrated an escalation in his aggressiveness and presented a significant risk to the safety of others. The evaluator found that appellant’s potential for violence toward others was “in the high range,” and recommended a structured behavior modification treatment program that would closely monitor and supervise his conduct.
At the disposition hearing on October 11, 2006, appellant’s dependency was dismissed. He was ordered removed from his aunt’s custody, ordered to be placed in a suitable foster home, private institution or group home, and placed on probation under the usual terms, including cooperation in any sex offender treatment. Appellant was credited with 64 days for time served and his maximum confinement time was calculated at seven years.
According to appellant’s counsel, appellant was placed at Mary’s Help Group Home in Vallejo on or about October 30, 2006.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on October 13, 2006.
Factual Summary
The following summary of the facts pertaining to count three is based on evidence presented at the contested jurisdictional hearing held on September 1, 2006:
Count Three
On August 9, 2006, about 8:20 p.m., Hameed Faizi was working at a hot dog stand at the Fruitvale BART station in Oakland when five African-American youths approached the stand. One of the youths, M.P., asked Faizi if he remembered him because Faizi had called the police on him a few weeks earlier. M.P. then called Faizi a “motherfucker” and said that he was going to “kick [his] ass.” M.P. and another one of the youths, whom Faizi identified as appellant, were both standing near Faizi and saying things to him. Faizi saw appellant take a soda from the stand. After the youths saw Faizi take some money out of his pocket to give change to a customer, M.P. told appellant to take Faizi’s money and his cell phone. Appellant and M.P. were trying to punch Faizi, and he had to keep backing away to keep from being hit. Afterward, three or four sodas were missing from the stand, which Faizi believed were taken by the other youths in the group while he was occupied with appellant and M.P., but appellant was the only one he saw take a soda. At some point, the BART police arrived and all of the youths ran off, except for appellant, who stayed near the stand. The police later brought the youths back to the hot dog stand, and Faizi identified M.P. and appellant.
M.P. testified for the defense. He admitted “messing” with Faizi and swearing at him, but he never threw punches at him or threatened to take his money or “beat his ass.” According to M.P., Faizi was scared and had a knife in his left hand and at one point tried to stab M.P. Appellant and a friend named Richard picked up some sodas, but when the police arrived Richard was the only one who actually left with a soda. Appellant kept running back and forth picking up a soda and then putting it back down again.
The court found Faizi highly credible, and did not find M.P. credible.
The following summaries of the facts pertaining to counts two, five, six, and seven are based on the disposition report and police reports:
Count Two
On May 20, 2006, between 10:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., 15-year-old victim Ashley R. was walking with friends in the 2100 block of Encinal Avenue in Alameda. Ashley and her friends walked past appellant and four other juveniles standing on the sidewalk. Without provocation, appellant pushed Ashley’s 14 year-old friend, Nicholas W., to the ground, and told Nicholas to give up his wallet and “empty your pocket.” Nicholas got to his feet and ran away. Without provocation, appellant turned and punched Ashley in the face, knocking her to the ground. He hit her in the face a second time as she was on the ground. Ashley was able to get up and run away.
Counts Five and Six
On February 6, 2006, between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m., 11-year-old K.P. was at the YMCA on Broadway in Oakland. Appellant took K.P. to the third floor and entered an empty room. He made K.P. get on her knees, threatening to harm her if she did not comply with his desires. Appellant forced K.P. to open her mouth and close her eyes. He put his penis in K.P.’s mouth and forced her to orally copulate him for three minutes.
Count Seven
On March 22, 2006, appellant left various obscene telephone text messages on K.P.’s cell phone.
Wende Findings
Appellant was represented by competent counsel throughout the proceedings.
Appellant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court finding that appellant committed the offense of robbery, and no evidentiary errors were committed.
Before appellant admitted the allegations of count two, and count five as amended, the court advised him of the constitutional rights he would be waiving and of the direct consequences of his admissions. Appellant expressly waived his constitutional rights, and knowingly and voluntarily admitted the allegations.
We requested briefing from both parties on the issue of whether the juvenile court should have ordered an assessment report under Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.1. After reviewing the briefs, we find no cognizable error and no prejudice to appellant in the juvenile court’s failure to order an assessment report.
The juvenile court did not err in dismissing the dependency proceeding.
There was no dispositional error.
This court has reviewed the entire record and finds no arguable legal issues that require further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Stein, Acting P.J., Swager, J.