Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J05-00633
NEEDHAM, J.
Robert H. (Robert) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order made pursuant to a probation violation. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In August 2007, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a second supplemental Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, charging Robert with a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2 (driving in wanton or willful disregard of the safety of persons or property while fleeing a police officer). The district attorney also filed a notice indicating that Robert was not eligible for a deferred entry of judgment. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 790.)
At a contested jurisdictional hearing, Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff Travis Wrangham testified that he was on patrol in full uniform on July 14, 2007. Around 11:00 p.m., he saw a truck (license plate no. 7B63808) being driven without its headlights turned on. Deputy Wrangham turned his marked patrol vehicle around and attempted to pull the truck over, activating his emergency lights. The truck, later determined to be driven by Robert, pulled over to the side of the road. Deputy Wrangham stopped his car and, as he began to open his door, Robert pulled back into traffic. The deputy activated his siren and emergency lights and pursued Robert, who refused to yield, running three stops signs and a red light, and at one point reached 65 miles per hour in a 25 mile-per-hour zone.
Meanwhile, Hercules police officer Ezra Tafesse was standing at an intersection where 30-40 kids were waiting to cross. When dispatch informed him of the approaching pursuit, Officer Tafesse ran out to the street and told the kids to get back on the sidewalk. About 10-15 seconds later, Robert and the pursuing patrol car passed through the intersection. Officer Tafesse followed the pursuit in his vehicle.
Deputy Wrangham observed Robert lose control of the truck at an intersection, and the truck rolled over several times. Four persons, including Robert, emerged from the truck. Deputy Wrangham detained one of them. Officer Tafesse arrived and, with other officers, found Robert hiding in the bushes.
After being advised of his rights, Robert told Deputy Wrangham that the truck belonged to his employer and that he had permission to drive it. Robert also stated he was afraid to stop the truck, because he was on probation and did not have a driver’s license.
At the hearing, both Deputy Wrangham and Officer Tafesse identified Robert as one of the truck’s occupants.
On cross-examination, Officer Tafesse testified that Robert had appeared scared, answered all of his questions, was generally cooperative, and admitted what he had done.
At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the felony violation as alleged, denying a defense motion to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor (see Pen. Code, § 17).
At the ensuing dispositional hearing, the juvenile court continued Robert as a ward of the court, committed him to a six-month regular program at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF), and placed him on probation, subject to various conditions. The court declared a total maximum confinement time of 58 months, including three years for the current offense. Robert was granted credit for 173 days of time served in juvenile hall, to count against 173 days of confinement in juvenile hall, and credit for 105 days for time previously served at OAYRF. The court also imposed a $100 restitution fine.
This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Robert’s appellate counsel represented in the opening brief in this appeal that she wrote to him at his last known address and advised him of the filing of a Wende brief, his opportunity to file his own supplemental brief within 30 days thereafter, and his right to request that appellate counsel be relieved from representation if he so desired. This court has not received such a request or supplemental written argument from appellant.
We find no arguable issues on appeal. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
III. DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
We concur. JONES, P. J., STEVENS, .J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the California Constitution.