In re Alexander E.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 7/29/13  In re Alexander E. CA4/3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT

 

DIVISION THREE

 

 
>

In re ALEXANDER E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,         Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   ALEXANDER E.,         Defendant and Appellant.	G047891            (Super. Ct. No. DL040281)            O P I N I O N

                        Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Orange
County, Gregory Jones, Judge. 
Affirmed.

                        Cindy Brines, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

                        No appearance for
Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

                                                *                      *                      *

                        The
juvenile court sustained allegations in a Welfare and Institutions Code section
602 petition that defendant Alexander E. (minor) committed href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">second degree robbery (petition 7).  (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c).)  The court declared the offense to be a felony
and set the maximum term of confinement at five years.  Minor then waived his constitutional rights
and admitted the probation violations alleged in petition 6, and the assault
with a deadly weapon charge (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) alleged in
petition 8.  The court ordered minor
continued as a ward of the court and committed him to juvenile hall for 180
days with credit for 50 days previously served. 


                        Minor timely filed a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">notice of appeal, and we appointed
counsel to represent him.  Counsel did
not argue against minor, but advised the court she was unable to find an issue
to argue on minor’s behalf.  Minor was
given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf.  That period has passed, and we have not
received any communication from him.  We
have examined the entire record but have not found an arguable issue.  (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) 
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

 

FACTS

 

                        We recite the facts in
the light most favorable to the judgment. 
(People v. >Houston (2012)
54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215.)

                        Late in the afternoon,
after school, a group of five or six boys, including nine-year-old Andre, were
gathered outside of the Boys and Girls Club in Anaheim.  Some of the boys were wrestling on the
grass.  Minor, then 15-years-old, walked
up in the company of a teenage girl and offered $5 to whoever knocked out
another person.  The boys responded by
starting to kick and hit Andre.  The
younger boys ran off when adult staff came to intervene.  But then minor kicked Andre, spit in his
face, took Andre’s shoe, and ran off. 
Andre had secreted $20 in the shoe. 


                        A police officer
responded to the scene and received information that caused him to contact
minor about 30 minutes later. The officer read minor his Mirandahref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title="">^[1] rights,
and minor admitted taking the shoe.  The
shoe and the money were never found. 

                       

DISCUSSION

 

                        To assist the court in
its independent review of the record,
minor’s counsel has suggested we consider only one potentially arguable issue:
to wit, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that minor
committed the robbery.  (>Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738.)  We consider the issue and easily
conclude the evidence was sufficient. 
“Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession
of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will,
accomplished by means of force or fear.” 
(Pen. Code, § 211.)  Minor
admitted taking the shoe.  Minor’s use of
force and fear to take personal
property from Andre’s person is readily apparent from minor’s act of kicking
Andre, spitting in his face, and pulling Andre’s shoe off his foot.  The taking was also manifestly felonious; the
act was done with the specific intent to permanently deprive Andre of his
property.  Andre was permanently deprived
of his money and his shoe.  The evidence
does not permit any inference that minor intended ever to return Andre’s
property to him.  The only reasonable
inference is to the contrary.

                        Our review of the entire
record has not disclosed the existence of any arguable issue.

 

DISPOSITION

 

                        The judgment is affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                    IKOLA,
J.

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

O’LEARY, P.
J.

 

 

 

FYBEL, J.