Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TJ16828 Robert Ambrose, Referee. Affirmed.
Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P.J.
Kevin H. appeals from an order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) following a finding that he committed the crime of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), as alleged in a petition filed December 2, 2008. The juvenile court ordered appellant to serve six months in a camp community placement program. We affirm.
The evidence at the adjudication hearing established that, on November 27, 2008, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Julio Castellanos was walking on Broadway Street near 46th Street in Los Angeles, when he was approached from behind by two minors. Appellant grabbed Castellanos from behind, and appellant’s cousin Lequan pushed something into Castellanos’s side and said, “Don’t move. We have a gun.” Lequan reached into Castellanos’s pocket and removed his wallet.
Castellanos called the police, who arrived about five to ten minutes later. The police took a report and tried to find the robbers, but they were unable to do so.
Castellanos then called his family, and they drove around looking for the perpetrators. Castellanos’s family found them two blocks away, approximately one hour later. Appellant and Lequan had on different clothing when Castellanos found them, but he recognized them. Neither appellant nor Lequan had a gun or any of Castellanos’s belongings.
Appellant’s grandmother testified that, on the day in question, appellant left her home on 84th Street around 12:30 p.m. and walked to his stepmother’s house, arriving there around 1:00 p.m. Appellant’s sister, Tyrea Price, testified that appellant arrived at his stepmother’s house at almost 1:00 p.m. and left the house with her and Lequan at 1:25 p.m. Price stated that she dropped appellant and Lequan off at a house on 54th Street and watched them walk through the gate.
The juvenile court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss. The court found the allegations true, sustained the petition, and declared appellant a ward of the court. The court placed appellant under the care, custody, and control of a probation officer and placed him in a six-month camp program.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the failure to consider alibi evidence.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On February 1, 2010, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
“[O]n [an] appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a juvenile court judgment sustaining the criminal allegations of a petition... we must apply the same standard of review applicable to any claim by a criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment of conviction on appeal.” (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371.) We are to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and must “‘presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’” (Id. at p. 1372.) Thus, although appellant presented alibi evidence in the form of the testimony of his grandmother and sister, “this court is bound by the findings of the trier of fact where it has rejected a hypothesis pointing to innocence and there is evidence to support its implied finding that guilt is the more reasonable of the two hypotheses.” (Ibid.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, J., MANELLA, J.