Opinion
D075712
09-09-2019
In re L.Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.Z., Defendant and Appellant.
Kenneth J. Vandevelde, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JCM240599) APPEAL from a Judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy and Ana Espana, Judges. Affirmed. Kenneth J. Vandevelde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found the allegation that L.Z. (the Minor) had committed a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) to be true. At the disposition hearing the court took custody of the Minor under Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (a)(2). The Minor was committed to Breaking Cycles for a period not to exceed 240 days, but the commitment was stayed pending a review hearing. The court determined the Minor could not pay one fine, but did impose a $100 restitution fine.
The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At about 8:30 in the morning, three men entered a Circle K market in San Diego. They asked a few questions and then left the store.
The three men re-entered the store about one minute later, accompanied by a fourth man. The men wandered around the store and asked questions about the merchandise. At one point one of the men pulled something out and told the cashier either "just stand there," or "don't move." The cashier thought the object was a knife. The cashier was frightened and complied. The man then followed the other three men out the door. The cashier then discovered the e-cigarettes and Juul vaporizer pods had been taken.
The cashier identified the Minor from a photo lineup as one of the men participating in the robbery. The Minor's probation officer viewed video images of the men who entered the store and identified the Minor as one of the group.
The Minor was later stopped in a car which matched the description of the vehicle used in the robbery. A search of the car produced 13 empty Juul pods.
Defense Evidence
The Minor testified. He admitted he entered the store with two men before the robbery. He said he then left, and a different group entered the store.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel requests this court to review the record for error. To assist the court and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified five possible issues for our consideration: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the property was taken by force or fear; 2) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the property was taken from the person or immediate presence of the victim; 3) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Minor was one of the perpetrators of the robbery; 4) whether custody credits were properly calculated; and 5) whether the fines imposed were proper.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: AARON, J. GUERRERO, J.