Opinion
A135145
08-22-2012
In re P.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. P.F., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ1101810901)
Appellant P.F. appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant's counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has submitted a declaration stating that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court's attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
A petition was filed by the Alameda County District Attorney on December 15, 2011, seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), and alleging one count of felony theft from the person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c); count one), and one count of felony receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496; count two). The facts underlying the allegations are that the victim was riding her bicycle in the early afternoon of October 17, 2011, with her laptop computer in a basket on the back of her bicycle. She heard a "clink" sound, similar to the sound made by her bike lock when she rides over a bump in the road, turned around and saw two youths running in the opposite direction with her laptop. Appellant was later identified by a witness to the event as the person responsible for taking the laptop. When he was located by police after the incident, appellant was found standing next to the stolen laptop.
The district attorney filed a "Determination of Eligibility [for] Deferred Entry of Judgment" on December 15, 2011. At a pretrial hearing held on January 5, 2012, appellant stipulated that the case could be heard by a temporary judge.
Because appellant contested the charges in the petition, he thereafter became ineligible for delayed entry of judgment. (In re Joshua S. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 670.)
All further dates are in the calendar year 2012, unless otherwise indicated.
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on February 14 and 15 before a temporary judge. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the juvenile court found the charge in count one to be true. No finding was made as to count two. Appellant was ordered released to the custody of his parents to be supervised by GPS monitoring. Other conditions of release were specified by the court.
A dispositional report was filed by the probation department recommending that appellant be granted probation with numerous conditions imposed.
A dispositional hearing was held on March 29, at which time appellant was adjudged a ward of the court. Probation was granted with numerous conditions imposed, and appellant was released to the custody of his parents. This timely appeal followed.
We have reviewed the entire record, and have concluded the jurisdictional findings were supported by the evidence. There was no error in the disposition, as it was fully supported factually, and was chosen by the trial judge in accordance with applicable juvenile law principles. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and we have concluded there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
__________
RUVOLO, P. J.
We concur: __________
REARDON, J.
__________
SEPULVEDA, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
--------