Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Ct. No. SWJ007360, Mark Ashton Cope, Judge.
Jill M. Klein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster, Acting P.J.
N.S. (minor) appeals from an order adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court and committing him to juvenile hall. Minor’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, arguing no issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. We have now conducted that review and we affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May 2007, two petitions were filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that minor had committed felonies: grand theft, when he took electronic equipment from a department store; and burglary, when he took merchandise from another store on a different date. In July 2007, minor admitted the allegations of both petitions. The court deferred entry of judgment and granted three years’ probation. The court also ordered minor to pay restitution, but this order was stayed pending successful completion of probation. Minor was also ordered to complete community service as a condition of probation.
As of January 2008, minor’s performance on probation was evaluated as “fair.”
In December 2007, the district attorney filed a third petition, alleging a felony vandalism offense. While that petition was pending, a fourth petition was filed in April 2008, alleging another felony vandalism offense. Minor admitted a reduced misdemeanor charge on the fourth petition, stating that he had “keyed” a car.
A contested hearing was held on the third petition. About 10:00 p.m., on November 7, 2007, a rock shattered a window in a mobilehome. The side of the trailer was also dented. The owner did not see who threw the rock.
The night of that incident, minor was walking with some friends along the street by a brick wall bordering the mobilehome park. The side of the mobilehome was about 12 feet away from the brick wall.
Police who were dispatched to the area found minor and his friends a short distance away. The police questioned the juveniles separately. One of minor’s companions, A.S., told police that she had seen minor throw a rock over the wall at the residence. A.S. heard a window break and told minor to stop. At trial, however, A.S. denied seeing anyone throw anything, denied telling the minor to stop what he was doing, and denied hearing any glass break. A.S. did remember talking to a police officer on the night of the incident, but stated she could not remember what she had told the officer.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defense moved to dismiss the charge pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to identify minor as the perpetrator. The court denied the motion. Minor offered no affirmative evidence. The court found the allegation of the petition true as to a misdemeanor offense of vandalism, a lesser included offense. The court further found that minor had not complied with the terms of his deferred entry of judgment on the two earlier petitions.
At a dispositional hearing in June 2008, the court found that minor had not completed his community service and that he continued to engage in offenses. The court imposed judgment and committed minor to juvenile hall for 22 to 44 days.
Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Minor’s appellate counsel has filed a brief arguing no substantive issues, but submitting the case for this court’s independent review pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493]. Counsel has suggested that possible areas for inquiry might be whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the minor’s plea on the fourth petition, whether the court properly admitted evidence of A.S.’s out-of-court statements, sufficiency of the evidence to support the true finding on the third petition, whether the court abused its discretion in committing minor to juvenile hall, whether minor’s credits were correctly calculated, and whether minor’s counsel was ineffective for failing to present any affirmative evidence at the contested hearing on the third petition.
Minor has been afforded the opportunity to personally file a supplemental brief raising any additional points. No supplemental brief has been filed.
ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review
When counsel files a brief setting forth a summary of the facts and proceedings, but raises no specific issues, the Court of Appeal must conduct an independent review of the entire record to determine whether it reveals any issues, which would, if resolved favorably to the appellant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)
II. There Are No Substantive Issues Requiring Reversal
None of the areas of inquiry suggested by minor’s appellate counsel support any arguably meritorious issues.
There was a sufficient inquiry and a sufficient factual basis to sustain the third petition. (People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 436.) The court questioned minor and elicited the minor’s direct admission that he had “keyed” a car.
The court properly admitted the police officer’s testimony of A.S.’s inconsistent statements. (Evid. Code, § 1235; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 200 [“‘The receipt in evidence of a prior inconsistent statement does not violate the confrontation clauses of the federal and state Constitutions where the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination’”].)
The evidence was sufficient to support the true finding of misdemeanor vandalism. A.S.’s statements sufficiently identified minor as the perpetrator of the offense. The court as the trier of fact resolved issues of credibility, including the determination that A.S.’s claimed lack of memory was untruthful, giving rise to the inference that her statements to police were truthful. (See People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 84-85 [claimed lack of memory raises question whether it is a deliberate evasion, which gives rise to implied inconsistency].)
The court did not abuse its discretion in committing minor to juvenile hall for 22 to 44 days. The court had earlier suspended imposition of judgment and granted probation. Minor’s compliance was described at one point as “fair,” at another as “marginal.” He minimized his own behavior, failed to take responsibility for his actions, failed to complete any of his required community service, continued to commit more crimes, and his conduct at school was troublesome. Minor did not benefit from prior lenient treatment and his mother was unable to control his behavior. A temporary restriction to juvenile hall was not inordinate. The juvenile court was well within its discretion, considering the efficacy of any less restrictive dispositions, the safety and protection of the public, and the best interests of the minor. (In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1090-1091.)
Minor was apparently incarcerated for one day upon his arrest. He received credit for that day. No evidence has been brought to suggest any error in the calculation of credits.
No claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the contested hearing can be sustained. There is no suggestion that any helpful affirmative evidence could have been proffered, and certainly nothing to demonstrate that minor suffered any prejudice from counsel’s conduct in the case. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674].)
We discern no additional issues, and nothing to warrant reversal or modification of the judgment.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Richli, J., King, J.