Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County., Ct. No. YJ34738, Wayne Denton, Commissioner.
Gerald P. Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BIGELOW, P. J.
The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that Z.M. committed the crime of second degree robbery. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The court placed Z.M. home on probation. Z.M. appeals. We affirm.
FACTS
On June 16, 2010, then 15-year-old Z.M. and another minor, A.F. (age at the time of the incident unknown), accosted R.J. and his girlfriend, V.A., in a hallway at a local high school. As A.F. began acting in a “disobeying” manner to R.J., grabbing R.J.’s headphones on his cell phone, Z.M. stated, “Hey, my homie needs that.” A.F. then dragged R.J. to the floor, and began pulling on R.J.’s phone, while Z.M. punched R.J. in the face “like eight or nine times.” Within a matter of seconds, R.J. surrendered his phone to A.F. After the attack, R.J.’s assailants ran out a hallway door, leaving R.J. with a bleeding and swollen nose. The incident was recorded by DVD recording equipment, and played at the time of Z.M.’s juvenile proceeding. We have viewed the DVD.
The record indicates that a petition was also filed against A.F., but he is not involved in this appeal.
After being robbed, R.J. went to the school nurse, and the nurse called police. Los Angeles Police Department Officer Harold Salazar responded to the school and spoke to R.J. about the incident. R.J. said he had been hit, and that his phone had been stolen. During roughly the same time frame, Los Angeles Unified School District Police Department Officer William Etue spoke by telephone to A.F.’s father about the incident. A.F.’s father brought A.F. back to the school, where Officer Etue read A.F. his Miranda rights. After waiving his rights, A.F. answered the officer’s questions in his father’s presence. A.F. admitted that he had hit R.J. and taken his phone. Officer Etue also Mirandized Z.M., following which he admitted he had held R.J. down while others hit him and stole his phone.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
On June 18, 2010, two days after the incident at R.J.’s school, the People filed a petition (§ 602) alleging that Z.M. committed the crime of second degree robbery. The matter was tried to the juvenile court in late 2010, at which time the People presented evidence establishing the facts summarized above. Z.M. testified in his own defense; he claimed that A.F. had grabbed R.J., and they had fallen to the floor. Z.M. claimed he only threw one punch, and that he did so only because he thought R.J. was about to punch A.F. as they were getting up from the floor. Z.M. claimed he did not see A.F. take R.J.’s phone.
On December 21, 2010, the juvenile court sustained the petition, finding true the allegation that Z.M. committed the crime of second degree robbery. The court placed Z.M. home on probation,
Z.M. filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Z.M. on appeal. On May 12, 2011, Z.M.’s appointed counsel submitted an opening brief raising no issues. On the same date, our court notified Z.M. by letter that he could submit any ground of appeal, argument or contention that he wished our court to consider. Z.M. has not submitted a response to our letter. We have independently reviewed the record submitted for this appeal, and find that Z.M.’s appointed counsel has fulfilled his duty, and that no arguable issue exists. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) We see no reversible error under J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) __ U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 2394], because the confessions in this case were not critically important to the juvenile court’s finding that Z.M. committed the charged robbery.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RUBIN, J. GRIMES, J