Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. J36477
Lambden, J.
Appellant J.W., was the subject of a wardship petition in the Superior Court of Sonoma County alleging that he committed first degree burglary in that county. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The court sustained the petition, and J.W. now appeals. His counsel raises no arguable issues, and J.W. declined to file a supplemental brief after being informed of his right to do so. He has asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues. We affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Facts
Eduardo Yebra returned home on August 8, 2010, to find that someone had entered his apartment in his absence and apparently taken several items. Yebra found several liquor bottles on the floor, and he determined that several of his watches and some cash were missing from the apartment. He estimated the total amount of cash missing at $700, and estimated the value of the missing watches at approximately $17,000. Yebra called the Santa Rose Police Department, which dispatched a police officer to the scene.
Officer Augustin Arredondo of the Santa Rosa Police Department responded to Yebra’s call. Upon inspecting the scene, Arredondo noticed that there were visible palm prints and fingerprints on two unbroken windows; and there were also prints on the broken window through which the suspect or suspects had apparently entered the apartment. He testified at trial that the prints were arranged in a direction consistent with someone trying to slide open the windows. Arredondo also noticed a shoeprint on a broken piece of glass outside one window that matched one of two different sets of shoeprints leading to the window. He requested the assistance of a field and evidence technician to preserve and evaluate the evidence.
Field and Evidence Technician Adria Cooper responded to Arredondo’s request for assistance. Cooper stated that the screens of all three windows she inspected were pried off, but that only the window on the northeast side of the building was broken. Cooper was able to lift prints from all three windows. Cooper confirmed in her testimony that the position and smudging of the prints suggested that someone had tried to slide open the broken northeast window. Cooper also photographed the shoeprint found by Arredondo.
John Jaynes, a forensic specialist for the Santa Rosa Police Department, testified at trial that he had evaluated the prints preserved by Cooper. He testified that he entered the fingerprints from the scene into the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, a computer program that compares unknown fingerprints with fingerprints from known individuals and suggests possible matches for evaluation. Jaynes further testified that the program returned the fingerprints of J.W. as a possible match for those found on the broken northeast window. Jaynes compared J.W.’s fingerprints with those from the crime scene, and reached the opinion that they matched.
Procedure
The People filed the petition resulting in the instant appeal on August 24, 2010, after J.W. had been apprehended on August 19 for smoking marijuana in public. J.W. had previously run away on August 4 from a group home where the court placed him after sustaining a prior petition related to burglary, and the police accordingly held him in custody.
The superior court held a contested jurisdictional hearing on September 20. At the September 20 hearing, J.W. did not mount any defense. Both the People and the defense waived opening statements. J.W.’s attorney cross-examined Arredondo and Cooper. At closing statements, J.W.’s attorney argued that although J.W.’s fingerprints were found on the exterior of the apartment’s windows, there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he entered the apartment or assisted someone else in entering the apartment. The People responded on rebuttal that the smudging of the fingerprints suggested that J.W. had attempted to open the windows and either entered himself or assisted his accomplice in entering. The court found the allegations true and sustained the petition.
The court ordered that J.W. continue as a ward of the court, that he make restitution in the amount of $10,400, and that he not associate with his accomplice, Cristina B. The court further ordered that J.W. be placed in the custody of the juvenile hall for 90 to 120 days while the probation department sought a suitable placement.
Grace Homes in Tulare County accepted J.W. for placement, but he fled shortly after arriving. J.W. was subsequently the subject of another petition, again related to another burglary in Visalia. The court determined that an out-of-state placement was in the best interests of J.W. and the community, and ordered that such a placement be sought. The Probation Department had recommended that a juvenile hall placement was not an appropriate recommendation for J.W.’s rehabilitation but that “[t]here is no equivalent facility for the minor in... California.” Accordingly, it was recommended that “the minor’s placement orders remain with out-of-state language added to ensure that as many options are available to him as possible.” J.W. remains in custody as a ward of the court and subject to all prior orders and probation conditions while the department investigates alternative placement. If no more appropriate placement can be found to accept J.W. he may remain in custody.
We were advised by counsel’s letter of February 8, 2011 that a further hearing affecting sentencing within the meaning of Rule 8.340(a)(1) would be heard on May 5, 2011. We obtained a copy of the court’s order from that hearing, which provided that J.W. remain in custody pending placement review on November 11, 2011, and we conclude that it raises no arguable issues.
An independent review of the record revealed no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Kline, P.J., Richman, J.