From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Thomas V.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Aug 13, 2007
No. E042537 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2007)

Opinion


In re THOMAS V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS V., Defendant and Appellant. E042537 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division August 13, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Douglas N. Gericke, Judge, Super.Ct.No. J210827.

James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

RICHLI, Acting P.J.

On October 16, 2006, the San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 charging minor in count 1 with a violation of Penal Code section 211, second degree robbery, a felony, and in count 2 with violating Penal Code section 459, second degree commercial burglary, a felony.

Minor originally denied the allegations in the petition. Later, after waiving his rights, the minor admitted the second degree robbery allegation in count 1, and the People agreed to dismiss the burglary allegation in count 2. Minor was declared a ward of the court, was determined to be an individual with exceptional needs pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1742, and was committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a period not to exceed three years.

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 the minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. A review of the entire record, including possible issues referred to by counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: GAUT, J., KING, J.


Summaries of

In re Thomas V.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Aug 13, 2007
No. E042537 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2007)
Case details for

In re Thomas V.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS V., Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Aug 13, 2007

Citations

No. E042537 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2007)