From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re W.D.

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Sep 8, 2009
No. H034033 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 8, 2009)

Opinion


IN RE W. D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. W. D., Defendant and Appellant. H034033 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District September 8, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV30804B

Mihara, J.

The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), which alleged that appellant W. D. committed a second degree robbery (Pen. Code §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). After a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition. The juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation in the custody of his parents.

I. Statement of Facts

On September 6, 2008, Athena Olmos was working as a loss prevention agent at Nordstrom’s when her supervisor Stephanie Lara notified her that three female juveniles were shoplifting. After they selected various items, they went to the first level of the store and met appellant and another male juvenile. Some individuals in the group made additional selections of merchandise. Eventually, they left the store without paying for the merchandise.

Olmos confronted one of the females and asked her to return to the store. About 15 to 20 feet away, Lara was talking to the other two females and appellant. Olmos went to assist Lara. As Olmos and Lara were trying to get appellant to return to the store, he pulled out a knife, started swinging it around, and said, “ ‘Get back.’ ” He then yelled, “ ‘Let’s go,’ ” and grabbed the bags of merchandise. Appellant and the other juveniles left.

Appellant testified that he and his friends went to Nordstrom’s to steal clothes. He brought his knife so that he could remove the sensors from the clothing. After they left the store with the stolen merchandise, the security guards stopped them. One of the guards was holding one of the female juveniles. Appellant told the guard, “ ‘Back off and let go of her.’ ” When the guard did not do so, he pulled out his knife. She released the juvenile. Appellant did not intend to obtain the bag with the stolen clothing.

II. Discussion

Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts, but raises no issues. Appellant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

III. Disposition

The order is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J., Duffy, J.


Summaries of

In re W.D.

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Sep 8, 2009
No. H034033 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 8, 2009)
Case details for

In re W.D.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE W. D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Sep 8, 2009

Citations

No. H034033 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 8, 2009)