Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles R. Scarlett, Judge. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ32870
Dee Hayashi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ZELON, J.
Roderick F. appeals from the juvenile court’s order continuing his wardship after finding he had committed attempted second degree robbery. We affirm.
On August 30, 2006, a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed alleging Roderick F. (the minor), then 17 years old, committed the crime of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664) on August 6, 2006, against Anthony Cole (Cole).
According to the prosecution evidence at the disposition hearing, at around 11:30 p.m. Anthony Cole got off the metro train at the Artesia station in Los Angeles. He was wearing a backpack. The minor approached and asked Cole whether he “gang banged.” When Cole said, “No, ” the minor demanded that Cole empty his pockets and grabbed his backpack. Cole yelled for his mother who was in the metro station parking lot. Cole’s mother appeared and told the minor to leave her son alone. The minor let go of the backpack and walked away. Cole and his mother identified Roderick F. to police, and he was arrested.
In his defense, the minor testified that when they passed each other on the station platform, Cole deliberately bumped into him and kept walking. The minor grabbed Cole’s backpack to stop him so Cole could apologize, but Cole immediately began calling for his mother so the minor let him go. The minor denied asking whether Cole “gang-banged, ” ordering him to empty his pockets, or intending to steal the backpack.
The juvenile court sustained the allegation in the petition, ordered the minor to remain a ward of the court, and also found him in violation of previously imposed conditions of probation. A prior order placing the minor home on probation was ordered terminated, and he was ordered into a six-month camp community placement. The maximum theoretical period of confinement was calculated as three years.
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On May 14, 2007, we advised the minor he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied the minor’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order is affirmed.
We concur: JOHNSON, Acting P. J., WOODS, J.