Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. J187967
Richman, J.
Counsel appointed for defendant R.A. has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We have conducted our review and conclude there are no arguable issues. We thus affirm.
Our examination reveals that on September 8, 2008, the District Attorney of Alameda County filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, charging defendant with misdemeanor vandalism (citing Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)). At a pretrial hearing on September 22, 2008, the matter was set for a jurisdictional hearing on October 24, 2008.
On October 10, 2008, defendant’s counsel filed a motion to suppress eyewitness identification, followed by a memorandum of points and authorities in support. The motion sought to exclude the testimony of two witnesses: Gilbert Perez, the victim, and Verenice Nunez.
On October 24, the motion and jurisdictional hearing were continued to December 12, 2008, and then again to January 12, 2009, when the matter came on for hearing.
The first item of business was that the court granted prosecutor’s oral motion to amend the charge from Penal Code section 594, subdivision (b)(2) to section 594, subdivision (b)(1). The court then confirmed the agreement of counsel that the motion to suppress would be ruled on at the appropriate point, following presentation of the case in chief.
The first witness was Perez, who testified that at approximately 9:00 p.m. on August 13, 2008, he heard a loud hissing sound coming from outside of his apartment in Hayward. He looked outside and saw a young man kneeling next to the right front tire of his car. Perez recognized the man as defendant, his former neighbor and a person with whom he had a conflict. Perez observed defendant hitting the tire with a black metal object approximately a foot long, and began to chase defendant as he ran toward the main road. Perez was unable to catch him.
Defendant then began presentation of his case, first calling Officer Larry Whites of the Hayward Police Department, who had investigated the report of vandalism. Officer Whites had photographed defendant with permission, following which he interviewed Verenice Nunez. Officer Whites showed Nunez the single photograph of defendant and asked her if she recognized the individual in the photo as the minor who slashed Perez’s tires. Nunez identified defendant from the photo.
Before taking further testimony, the juvenile court ruled on defendant’s suppression motion, granting it as to Nunez but denying it as to Perez.
Defendant and his mother then both testified on his behalf. Defendant denied responsibility for the vandalism, and said that on the night of the incident he was home all night playing video games. Defendant further stated that Perez confronted him in an aggressive manner while he was working at Safeway, accusing him of the vandalism and threatening him. Defendant said that this was the only time he had seen Perez in person.
Defendant’s mother testified that she returned home at about 7:00 p.m. on the night of the incident, and that she remained at home with defendant for the rest of the evening. Defendant’s mother noted that she sleeps in the living room, and would have been aware of his departure.
Following the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations charged in the petition to be true.
At the dispositional hearing on March 2, 2009, the court ordered defendant a ward of the court and ordered him placed on home probation. The court imposed the standard conditions of probation and other conditions, including that defendant cooperate in appropriate counseling; observe a curfew of 10:00 p.m.; have no overnight visits without prior approval of the probation officer and his mother; stay away from Perez; attend four weekends at the Weekend Training Academy; and pay restitution of $1050 to Perez and pay a restitution fine of $25.
On April 30, 2009, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant was represented at all times by counsel.
The jurisdictional finding is supported by substantial evidence.
The probation conditions imposed were all reasonably related to the offense defendant was found to have committed, to protecting the public, and to preventing future criminality. (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481; In re Bacon (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 34, 60.)
The dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: Kline, P.J., Haerle, J.