Opinion
D059317 Super. Ct. No. J228105 Super. Ct. No. JDA F7412 Super. Ct. No. JDA F7625
08-25-2011
In re ALEJANDRO G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO G., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.
Appellant Alejandro G., age 16, admitted, and the juvenile court found true, a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (the unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle) and the court dismissed the remaining charges. Concerning a separate petition, appellant admitted, and the juvenile court found true, a violation of Penal Code section 496 subdivision (b), a misdemeanor, pursuant to Penal Code section 17 subdivision (b) (receiving a stolen motor vehicle) and the court dismissed the remaining charge.
At the disposition hearing, the court considered both petitions; declared appellant a ward of the court; ordered that he be committed to San Diego County Camp Barrett for a maximum of 365 days, and be placed with his mother upon completion of the program; and imposed various fines, including victim restitution fines.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Facts are taken from reports prepared by the probation department.
During 2010, officers from the Regional Auto Theft Task Force were investigating cases involving unknown suspects stealing motorcycles from shopping malls. They determined that Jimmy Martinez and appellant were involved. In January 2011, the investigators observed a male drive across the United States/Mexico border into the United States at the San Ysidro port of entry, and pick up appellant and Martinez who had entered the United States by foot at that same port of entry.
The investigators followed the three individuals as they drove in and out of several apartment complexes, eventually parking in front of an apartment in El Cajon. Appellant and one of the other suspects exited the car and entered the apartment complex. Thereafter, the suspect who had been with appellant returned to the car. The driver drove toward the freeway, followed by appellant who was driving a Honda Civic.
When the officers attempted a traffic stop on the freeway, appellant failed to yield and a high-speed chase ensued. Appellant eventually stopped and fled on foot. After he was apprehended and advised of his Miranda rights, appellant admitted he and Martinez had stolen the Honda Civic, five other Hondas, and 12 to 14 motorcycles. He stated that he was paid between $150 to $200 dollars for each theft. Several days later, appellant's fingerprint was identified on the mirror of a motorcycle stolen in 20l0. Following another Miranda admonishment, appellant stated that although he did not recall stealing that particular motorcycle, if his fingerprint was on the mirror, he "must have done it."
When the first petition was filed, appellant filed a Deferred Entry of Judgment motion pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 790. At the scheduled hearing, appellant withdrew his motion and admitted the Vehicle Code violation. He later admitted the Penal Code violation set forth in the second petition.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue, whether the court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant to Camp Barrett, with custody not to exceed 365 days. We granted appellant permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented appellant on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J. WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.