Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. J218484, Michael A. Knish, Temporary Judge. Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.
Maureen M. Bodo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P.J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 20, 2007, pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 602, minor was declared a ward of the juvenile court following a sustained allegation of petty theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, subd. (a) & 490.5) and placed in the care, custody and control of his mother. Minor was also ordered to comply with the terms and conditions of his grant of probation. On January 4, 2008, minor was continued as a ward of the court, following sustained allegations of two misdemeanors (Pen. Code, §§ 422 & 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)), and again placed in his mother’s home under terms and conditions of probation.
On June 16, 2008, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed two additional petitions. One petition alleged that minor had committed eight violations of the previously imposed conditions of probation and the second petition alleged that minor had committed second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).
Thereafter, a contested jurisdictional hearing on the second petition (Pen. Code, § 211) took place on July 9, 2008. The court sustained the petition, finding that minor had aided and abetted the robbery and dismissed the probation-violation allegations. At the dispositional hearing, the court ordered that minor be detained in juvenile hall for 185 days, with credit for 42 days served.
Minor filed a timely notice of appeal on August 8, 2008.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On June 12, 2008, M. and his friend J. were riding their bicycles to J.’s house, when three males, an adult and two minors, approached them. The shortest of the three, later identified as minor R.H., asked M. and J. if they had a dollar. The adult, identified only as “Tafolla”, pushed M. off his bike without warning. M. asked why Tafolla had done that, and Tafolla responded, “You know what’s up.” Tafolla and the middle-sized minor appeared to be ready for a fight. M. declined to fight because he was outnumbered and Tafolla said, “All right. Then I’ll just take your bike.”
At the hearing, M. was uncertain about who had picked up the bike. First he testified that it was minor who picked up the bike and rode away on it, while Tafolla and the other minor walked away. On cross-examination, M. said that Tafolla picked up the bike and gave it to minor, who was standing about 10 feet away and then minor rode away on it.
M. had seen both Tafolla and minor before. Tafolla had accused M. of “messing up his house.” Tafolla and his friends chased M. down the street and M. believed they wanted to beat him up. Minor had been with Tafolla during that incident.
J.’s version of events differed from M.’s in some respects. He testified that it was the medium-sized person, not the tallest one, who pushed M. off his bike. He did not recall hearing the tall person say anything. According to J., it was minor who picked up the bike and walked away with it. After the three were gone, J. called 911 on his cell phone.
Deputy Scott Walsh of the Apple Valley Sheriff’s Department was on duty on June 12, at approximately 7:40 p.m., when he received a call concerning the robbery. Other deputies had stopped the suspects. Deputy Walsh took M. to a lineup, and M. identified the suspects in custody as the three who had approached him. The bicycle was recovered and returned to M. Minor and the others were arrested and taken to the police station.
After Deputy Walsh read minor his Miranda rights, minor agreed to speak with him. Minor said that he had taken the bike after he found it leaning against a wall, with no owner in sight. Minor then stated that he had found the bike in a field. Officer Walsh said he thought minor was lying and urged him to tell the truth. Finally, minor said that he was with his friends when the bike was taken but had his back to them because he was a lookout for the cops. When he turned around, he saw M. on the ground, next to the bike. Minor picked up the bike and rode off with his friends.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
Minor appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RICHLI J., GAUT J.