Opinion
B231315
12-29-2011
In re STEVEN G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN G., Defendant and Appellant.
Gerald Peters, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. TJ19103)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gibson Lee, Judge. Affirmed.
Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Steven G. appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered by reason of his having committed the felony of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The juvenile court placed Steven G. at home on probation. We affirm the juvenile court's order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts.
a. The prosecution's case.
On June 21, 2010, U.N., a ninth grader, was attending a magnet school at which Steven G. was also a student. At approximately 3:00 p.m. that day, U.N. was waiting at the bus stop in front of the school when she was approached by Steven G. and a girl. As Steven G. walked up to U.N., he said, " 'You already know what I want.' " U.N. responded, " 'What are you talking about?' " Steven G. then stated, " 'Don't play dumb' " and he indicated that he wanted U.N.'s cell phone. Steven G. told U.N. that, if she did not give him her phone, he was going to hit, or " 'sock' " her. U.N.'s phone, a "Sidekick LX2009," was in her purse. It had no distinct markings or writings on it, with the exception of U.N.'s name which she had written on the back.
While the other girl, who was holding Steven G.'s phone, waited some distance away, Steven G. moved to within an arm's length of U.N. At that point, U.N. was afraid that Steven G. was actually going to hit her. U.N. took her phone out of her purse and asked Steven G. if she could take out her " 'memory card and SIM card[.]' " Steven G. indicated that that would be alright and, after removing the cards, U.N. handed the phone to Steven G. U.N. started to cry and the girl who had been with Steven G. looked at U.N. and said, " 'I didn't know he was going to do that.' " U.N. screamed at the girl and the girl walked away. When U.N. then turned around, Steven G. was gone.
U.N. was still crying when the bus pulled up and, as she got on, the driver asked U.N. if U.N. wanted her to call the police. U.N. told the bus driver "No," that she did not want the driver to call the police for her. However, when U.N. arrived home without her phone, her mother telephoned the police.
b. Defense evidence.
Steven G. testified that U.N.'s description of the events which occurred on June 21, 2010 was accurate with one exception: he never told her that he was going to hit or "sock" her. Neither did he raise his arm to threaten U.N. Steven G. did not threaten U.N. in any way. He simply walked up to her and said, " 'You know what I want' " and " 'just give it to me.' " According to Steven G., U.N. then said, " 'What do you want?' " She "got like an attitude" and he "remember[ed that] she said 'What are you going to do? Punch me?' " U.N. then took her cell phone out of her purse, asked Steven G. if she could remove the memory and SIM cards and, after doing so, gave Steven G. the phone. Steven G. then "just walked away." Steven G. admitted that, although he did not threaten her, he had intended to steal U.N.'s phone.
Two or three days later, police officers came to Steven G.'s home, arrested him and transported him to the police station. At the time of his arrest, he had in his pocket a phone with U.N.'s name printed on the back.
2. Procedural history.
On December 14, 2010, a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that, on June 21, 2010, 16-year-old Steven G. committed the felony of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. Following a hearing held on the matter during which evidence of the robbery was presented, the juvenile court found the allegations made in the petition to be true and sustained the petition.
At proceedings held on February 24, 2011, the juvenile court indicated that it had read and considered the probation report prepared on January 25, 2011. After both parties submitted the matter on the basis of the report, the juvenile court stated that it seemed appropriate to follow the recommendations made there. Accordingly, the juvenile court declared Steven G. a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placed his "care, custody and control" under the supervision of a probation officer. Steven G. was to be allowed to remain in the home of his father under certain terms and conditions, including that he obey all "orders of the probation officer" and instructions given to him by his father, that he provide a DNA sample, that he maintain satisfactory grades in school and that he pay a mandatory minimum restitution fine of $100. Steven G. was to "[m]ake curfew as set by [his] father," to not associate with anyone disapproved of by his father or the probation officer and to not contact the victim. Finally, the juvenile court granted Steven G. one day of predisposition credit.
Steven G. filed a timely notice of appeal on February 28, 2011.
This court appointed counsel to represent Steven G. on April 25, 2011.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
By notice filed September 9, 2011, the clerk of this court advised Steven G. to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
REVIEW ON APPEAL
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully with counsel's responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KLEIN, P. J.
We concur:
KITCHING, J.
ALDRICH, J.