Opinion
E054157
06-14-2012
In re H.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. H.M., Defendant and Appellant.
John D. O'Loughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. RIJ1100594)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed, Judge. Affirmed.
John D. O'Loughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that defendant and appellant H.M. committed two robberies. (Pen. Code, § 211.) After a bench trial, the juvenile court found the allegations to be true and that defendant came within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court, and ordered him to be detained in juvenile hall for 17 to 34 days, with credit for 17 days served. The court also ordered that he be released to the custody of his parents, on specified terms of probation, and that he participate in a juvenile work program.
We note that defendant is no longer a minor.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise noted.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Three males, including defendant, approached J.V. and P.B. (the victims). P.B. was smoking a cigar, and the three males asked him for it. P.B. handed it over, and one of the males grabbed him. Defendant grabbed J.V., and the third male started punching J.V. in the face. One of the three males held J.V. down, while another went through his pockets and took his Playstation Portable (PSP). They went through P.B.'s pockets and took his wallet and cell phone. Defendant and his cohorts left, and P.B. and J.V. started following them. Along the way, the victims stopped a man and asked him to call 911. Defendant and his cohorts reached a house, and by the time J.V. and P.B. arrived, the police were already there.
Deputy Jonathan Bodnar was one of the responding officers. He spoke with one of the three males and asked if he could check his pockets. Deputy Bodnar found a cell phone resembling the one that had been stolen. The individual first claimed the cell phone belonged to him, but then admitted that it belonged to one of the victims. Deputy Bodnar also found a PSP in another one of the individual's pockets. Deputy Bodnar arrested all three of them.
Deputy Bodnar interviewed defendant at the police station. He read defendant his Miranda rights, and confirmed that defendant understood his rights. He asked defendant a series of nonrelated questions about his family, friends, and activities, and defendant answered. Defendant was open and willing to have a conversation with the officer. Deputy Bodnar then asked about the incident. Defendant confessed that he and his two friends ran into the victims, and asked for a cigar; then one of his friends grabbed J.V. and held him, while he (defendant) went through the victim's pockets and removed his cell phone, wallet, and keys. Defendant said the wallet was empty, so he threw it and the keys in the bushes. He and his friends then fled to a nearby neighborhood, went to a friend's home, and made a deal to sell the stolen PSP. They subsequently left the area and were apprehended by the police.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).
--------
ANALYSIS
Defendant 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 and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in failing to hold a hearing to determine if defendant was entitled to informal probation pursuant to section 654, or deferred entry of judgment pursuant to section 790; (2) whether the court erred in admitting defendant's statements to Deputy Bodnar in violation of his Miranda rights; and (3) whether the court erred in admitting defendant's statements in violation of People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
Furthermore, in the trial court, defendant sought discovery of the personnel records of Deputy Bodnar relating to complaints of racial prejudice, false arrest, illegal search and seizure, excessive force, dishonesty, and fabrication of charges. The motion was made pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. The trial court examined the personnel files in chambers and found no discoverable evidence. Counsel has now requested this court to review the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing to determine whether the court abused its discretion by ruling that the records produced no discoverable material. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1232.) Although it is not this court's policy to allow briefs requesting that this court review Pitchess materials to be filed as a Wende brief, we made an exception in this case. We have reviewed the in camera proceedings and conclude that the records contain no discoverable material. There was no error.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.