From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Sean M.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Nov 29, 2007
No. A118446 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2007)

Opinion


In re SEAN M., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent v. SEAN M., Defendant and Appellant. A118446 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division November 29, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ07006752

Jones, P.J.

Sean M. appeals from a disposition entered after he admitted two counts of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851), and one count of being an accessory after the fact to robbery (Pen. Code, § 32). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.

On February 25, 2007, Oakland police officers saw a car that had been reported as stolen. The officers stopped the car and arrested appellant, the driver.

On June 15, 2007, officers from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department found appellant in a stolen car that was parked in a church parking lot. Also on June 15, 2007, appellant was present in the stolen car when another occupant jumped out, pushed a woman to the ground, and took her purse.

Based on these and other facts, a petition was filed charging appellant with ten separate criminal offenses. The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant admitted the offenses we have described above. In exchange, other allegations were dismissed.

Subsequently, at disposition, the court ordered that appellant be removed from his mother’s custody and placed in a suitable family or group home.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Prior to accepting appellant’s admission, the court made sure that appellant understood the Constitutional rights he was waiving. The court also confirmed that appellant understood the consequences of his plea. Appellant’s admission is supported by a factual basis. We see no error in the disposition. Appellant was represented by adequate counsel.

We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . (See also, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

The disposition is affirmed.

We concur: Gemello, J., Needham, J.


Summaries of

In re Sean M.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Nov 29, 2007
No. A118446 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2007)
Case details for

In re Sean M.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent v. SEAN M., Defendant and Appellant.

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Date published: Nov 29, 2007

Citations

No. A118446 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2007)