Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J220967, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.
NARES, Acting P. J.
A juvenile delinquency petition filed in November 2008 accused Ricardo A. of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460)), grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). After a February 2009 trial the juvenile court entered true findings as to the first two counts and dismissed the third count. The court adjudged Ricardo a ward and placed him on probation. Ricardo appeals. We affirm.
Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
THE PROSECUTION CASE
On October 24, 2007, Tori Woodley voluntarily evacuated her apartment because there was a fire nearby. When she returned home the next morning, she found that a window had been forced open. At least $1,000 worth of property was missing: computer game systems and accessories, knives, a bubbler used to smoke marijuana and toy guns. Woodley attempted to secure the window and went to work. When she returned home a few hours later, the window was broken.
Woodley's son went to Matthew R.'s home and asked if Matthew knew anything about the burglary. Matthew had a knife and a computer game that had been stolen from Woodley's home.
In December 2007 sheriff's detective Dustin Lopez interviewed Ricardo. Ricardo denied he had entered Woodley's home but said he had seen Kevin C. nearby with a video game system on the day of the burglary.
In January 2008 Amber P. told Lopez that on the day of the burglary, Matthew, Dwayne F., Kevin and Ricardo said they had entered Woodley's home. They showed Amber stolen property. Kevin showed her a bubbler and Ricardo bragged about taking game systems and games.
At trial Amber testified that in October 2007 she was a friend of Matthew, Kevin, Ricardo, and Dwayne. Soon after the burglary she heard Matthew, his brother Richard R. and Dwayne brag about the burglary and the property they had stolen. She saw the bubbler at Matthew and Richard's house when Dwayne was there. Ricardo and Kevin were not there.
THE DEFENSE CASE
On the afternoon of October 25, 2007, the manager of Woodley's apartment complex saw five white teenagers walking near Woodley's apartment. She did not see Ricardo.
Ricardo testified that he found out about the burglary from a police officer. Ricardo told the officer that Kevin might have taken the property because Ricardo had seen Kevin carrying a game system near the apartment complex. Ricardo told the officer that he was not present when Amber heard people brag about the burglary. Ricardo denied participating in the burglary and denied possessing the stolen game systems.
Ricardo's father testified that he never saw Ricardo in possession of any property that was not Ricardo's.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the true findings, and (2) whether the delay in prosecution violated Ricardo's due process right to a speedy adjudication.
We granted Ricardo permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Ricardo has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, J., O'ROURKE, J.