Opinion
B233569
12-21-2011
In re JAMES P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES P., Defendant and Appellant.
Jennifer Gerard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ18749)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steve Klaif, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Jennifer Gerard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In March 2011, the People filed a petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleging that James P. had committed the following offenses: (count 1) second degree robbery; (count 2) assault with a deadly weapon; and (count 3) making a criminal threat. (Pen. Code, §§ 211; 245, subd. (a)(1); 422.) At a hearing in June 2011, the victim, L.R., testified that James approached him, "yanked" a gold necklace from L.R.'s neck and started running away. L.R. chased James for about a block, when James stopped. L.R. asked him to return the necklace. James "got an attitude," showed a knife he had in his waist and said, "You better back off before we get down." About two weeks later, L.R. saw James at school and told a vice principal what he had done. For his part, James testified that he never took anything from L.R. or threatened him with a knife. James's mother testified she had picked up James at the front gate of his school on the day of the alleged incident.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found that James committed the offenses of robbery (count 1) and making a criminal threat (count 3). The court dismissed the alleged assault (count 2) as not proven. The court released James home to his mother on probation, subject to standard conditions, including that he obey all laws, report to the probation officer as directed, and abstain from alcohol or the possession of narcotics. The court directed the probation officer to interview L.R. for purposes of determining restitution.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent James on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the procedural and factual history of the case and requesting that we review the entire record on appeal for arguable issues. On October 17, 2011, we notified James by letter that he could submit any claims or arguments which she wished our court to consider. James did not respond to our letter.
We have independently reviewed the record submitted on appeal, and are satisfied that James's appointed counsel has fulfilled her duty, and that no arguable issues exist. (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BIGELOW, P. J.
We concur:
RUBIN, J.
FLIER, J.