From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. J.F.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Oct 24, 2011
B230899 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2011)

Opinion

B230899

10-24-2011

In re J.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.F., Defendant and Appellant.

Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. MJ19769)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robin R. Kessler, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Minor J.F., now 16, appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, following a finding J.F. committed felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)). We appointed appellate counsel to represent him. Appointed counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)The brief included a declaration from counsel that he reviewed the record and advised J.F. of his right, under Wende, to submit a supplemental brief. On August 10, 2011, this court sent J.F. notice at his last known address advising him that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. The notice was returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address. We contacted appointed counsel, who informed this court that he did not have a current forwarding address for J.F. and that his phone had been disconnected. Because it was J.F.'s obligation to advise the court of any changes of address while his appeal was pending, we will reach the merits of the appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.32.)

The facts are these: Between May 25 and June 21, 2010, the rear windows of R.L.'s Palmdale, California, home were broken on at least three occasions. In May, R.L. made two reports of vandalism to the sheriff's department, complaining that several minors had broken his windows with rocks. The cost to repair each broken window was $450. The last incident was on June 21, 2010, when R.L. heard several "popping" noises and saw a hole the size of a hockey puck in one of his windows. Rocks were on the ground outside the window. When he went outside to investigate, he saw three minors running in the open field behind his house. R.L. and his two sons yelled for them to stop, and flagged down a passing sheriff's deputy. The deputy stopped four minors, J.F., C.M., A.L., and J.Q. and called for backup.

The responding deputies handcuffed the minors and placed them in a patrol car. While they were being detained, J.F.'s brother, J.W., approached the deputies and was also detained. J.F. and codefendant C.M. were interviewed after waiving their Miranda rights. J.F. admitted that his friends had thrown rocks at R.L.'s house that day, and that he had thrown rocks at the home almost every day over the previous month and a half, and heard the sound of breaking glass on several of these occasions. J.W. and C.M. made similar admissions after being read their rights under Miranda and following an inquiry concerning their understanding of "right" and "wrong" under In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855. None of the deputies threatened the minors that they would be sent to "camp" for vandalism during questioning.

J.F. testified that he did not throw rocks at R.L.'s windows, and had admitted to it only because deputies threatened that he would be sent to camp. J.Q. said J.F. and the others did not throw any rocks.

The juvenile court found the allegations to be true and declared the offense a felony. The court denied the motion to dismiss the charge (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725) and the request to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor, reasoning that J.F. admitted to throwing rocks at the house multiple times over a number of months, which the court concluded was "felony behavior, not misdemeanor behavior." The court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him home on probation. In addition to the standard terms of probation, the court ordered appellant to have no contact with the victim and with the other minors who committed the offense, and to make restitution of $450.

We have examined the entire record, consisting of one volume of clerk's transcript and two volumes of reporter's transcript, and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm the order of wardship below.

DISPOSITION

The order of wardship is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

GRIMES, J. WE CONCUR:

RUBIN, Acting P. J.

FLIER, J.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.


Summaries of

People v. J.F.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Oct 24, 2011
B230899 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2011)
Case details for

People v. J.F.

Case Details

Full title:In re J.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

Date published: Oct 24, 2011

Citations

B230899 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2011)