Opinion
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J07-00106
OPINION
Ruvolo, P. J.
Appellant Otis G. (appellant) appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
A petition was filed seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), which alleged one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). Appellant was ordered to be detained, and a jurisdictional hearing on the petition was set for January 30, 2007.
Before that hearing, a written motion to suppress evidence was filed by appellant. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1.) The motion sought to suppress statements made by appellant to police after his arrest. His primary contention was that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, and therefore, the statements he made were the result of an illegal detention. That motion was denied on February 20, 2007.
Appellant thereafter agreed that the truth of the allegation in the petition could be decided by the court based on the police reports concerning the incident, redacted to eliminate that information provided by appellant’s co-participants. In so doing, appellant agreed to waive his constitutional rights to a jurisdictional hearing, including, among other things, his right to produce and examine witnesses, and to remain silent.
The court then pronounced that, based on the redacted police reports, the allegation in the petition was true. A dispositional hearing was set for March 13, 2007.
Prior to that hearing a report was submitted by the probation department, which recommended that appellant be adjudged a ward of the court and be placed in a suitable out-of-home placement for six months to be followed by probation with conditions. As to the circumstances of the crime, the probation department noted that the underlying robbery occurred when appellant and several other youths planned to rob someone while they were congregating at the El Cerrito BART station. They then set upon a 46-year-old man, threatening him with a BB gun, and ordering him to relinquish his personal property including money, keys and wallet. He begged them not to hurt him, and showed the group his disability card. Undeterred, the group, of which appellant was a member, took his property after hitting the victim repeatedly in the face, head, and shoulder area.
At the dispositional hearing the court declared appellant to be a ward of the court, and ordered that he be placed at “the ranch” for a period of six months to be followed by a period of probation, with conditions. He was also ordered to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $100.
We have reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, and have concluded that the denial of that motion was supported by the evidence, and was consistent with applicable law. The jurisdictional finding was supported by the evidence. There was no error in the disposition, as it was fully supported factually, and was decided by the trial judge in accordance with applicable juvenile law principles. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and we have concluded there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Reardon, J., Rivera, J.