Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J07-00109
Ruvolo, P.J.
Appellant W. F. III appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
A petition was filed on January 17, 2007, seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 600 et seq.), and which alleged one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). Appellant was ordered to be detained, and a jurisdictional hearing on the petition was set for February 20 and 27, 2007.
On February 27, 2007, the petition was amended by the prosecutor, who dismissed the second degree robbery allegation and added an allegation of grand theft from a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c).) Appellant pleaded no contest as to the grand theft allegation after being advised of the rights he was waiving by entering the plea. He was also advised that the maximum period of confinement he could receive as a result of his plea was three years. A disposition hearing was set for April 3.
The disposition hearing was continued while the parties, with the assistance of the probation department, explored alternative placements. Prior to that hearing a report was submitted by the probation department, which recommended that appellant be adjudged a ward of the court and placed in a suitable out-of-home placement for a maximum of three years to be followed by probation with conditions.
As to the circumstances of the crime, the probation department noted that the underlying theft occurred when appellant and several other youths planned to rob someone while they were congregating at the El Cerrito BART station. Appellant had a BB gun in his possession, which he gave to another youth in the group. They then set upon a 46-year-old man, threatening him with the BB gun, and ordering him to relinquish his personal property including watch, wallet, and Raiders cap. He begged for them not to hurt him, and showed the group his disability card. Undeterred, the group, of which appellant was a member, took his property after hitting the victim repeatedly in the face, head, and shoulder area.
At the dispositional hearing the court declared appellant to be a ward of the court, and ordered that he be detained by the probation department pending a suitable out-of-home placement. The maximum period of placement was set at three years, to be followed by a period of probation, with conditions, including the payment of $100 restitution and a letter of apology to the victim. Placement review was ordered to be held on May 8, 2007. On that date, probation confirmed that appellant had been accepted for placement at Boys Republic.
We have reviewed the entire record, and have concluded that there are no issues which require further briefing or argument. Appellant’s plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered. There was no error in the disposition, as it was fully supported factually, and was chosen by the trial judge in accordance with applicable juvenile law principles. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Sepulveda, J., Rivera, J.