From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re L.F.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 18, 2013
D062741 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2013)

Opinion


In re L.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.F., Defendant and Appellant. D062741 California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division March 18, 2013

         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. J231883, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.

          BENKE, Acting P. J.

         The juvenile court entered true findings L.F. had committed residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460), petty theft (Id., § 484), evading a police officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor resisting a public officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The court declared L.F. a ward and committed him to the Breaking Cycles program for a period not to exceed 150 days. L.F. appeals. We affirm.

         BACKGROUND

         On the afternoon of April 15, 2012, Jeffrey Smith was working in his front yard. His garage door was about halfway open. Smith saw two males walk by and saw L.F. in his driveway. Smith then noticed his child's scooter was between two cars parked in the driveway. The scooter had previously been in Smith's garage. Smith called out to L.F. L.F. walked away and Smith followed him. Smith called the police. L.F., who had been detained nearby with two companions, told a police officer he had seen the scooter in the driveway and walked onto the property with the intention of stealing it. L.F. denied having entered the garage.

         Shortly after midnight on August 21, 2012, police Officer Patrick Kelly was driving a marked patrol car. He noticed a moving sedan with no headlights. Kelly turned on his overhead lights and siren. The driver accelerated rapidly, sped through stop signs and collided with a truck. The sedan slowed and L.F. opened the driver's side door, jumped out, rolled on the ground and ran into the front yard of a residence. Kelly chased L.F. but lost sight of him. Other officers set up a perimeter. L.F. was detained about a block away.

         DISCUSSION

         Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to 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 lists as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether there was sufficient evidence to support the true finding of theft.

         We granted L.F. 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 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. L.F. has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

         DISPOSITION

         The judgment is affirmed.

          WE CONCUR: McDONALD, J.McINTYRE, J.


Summaries of

In re L.F.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 18, 2013
D062741 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2013)
Case details for

In re L.F.

Case Details

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

Court:COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 18, 2013

Citations

D062741 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2013)