Opinion
B202677
4-16-2008
In re JORGE E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE E., Defendant and Appellant.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
A petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged Jorge E. had committed the offense of driving or taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a).
The evidence at the jurisdiction hearing established Jacob Martinez loaned his car to Juan Chavez, who drove it to his mothers house. Later that night, Chavez heard the car start, rushed outside and saw someone driving the car away. Chavez saw the car become involved in a collision that damaged the drivers side. The only person who emerged from the car after the collision was then 17-year-old Jorge E. He got out of the front passenger side and used a crutch in walking away from the scene. Martinez did not know Jorge E. and never gave him permission to drive his car.
Jorge E. did not testify in his defense. The juvenile court admitted into evidence documentation that at the time Martinezs car was taken, Jorge E. was on C.D.P. (community detention program) and wore an ankle bracelet.
Following the presentation of evidence, the prosecution argued Chavezs identification of Jorge E., based on his physical disability, proved beyond a reasonable doubt Jorge E. took and drove Martinezs car without permission. Jorge E.s defense was misidentification. The defense argued the C.D.P. documentation showed at the time of the offense, Jorge E. was at home. There was no indication Jorge E. was in violation of C.D.P. that day.
At the conclusion of the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt Jorge E. had committed the alleged offense and sustained the petition. At the ensuing disposition hearing, the court declared Jorge E. a ward of the court, terminated him from C.D.P., and ordered him home on probation subject to certain terms and conditions.
Jorge E. timely appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an "Opening Brief" in which no issues were raised. On March 3, 2008, we advised Jorge E. he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Jorge E.s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order is affirmed.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
ZELON, J. --------------- Notes: A second petition alleging Jorge E. had committed the offenses of grand theft of an automobile (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)) and of driving or taking a vehicle was dismissed on a defense motion when the prosecution was unable to proceed.