In re Andre W.
Filed 3/14/07 In re Andre W. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re ANDRE W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE W., Defendant and Appellant. | A115798 (AlamedaCounty Super. Ct. No. C189370-02) |
Defendant Andre W., born in February 1989, appeals a juvenile court dispositional order adjudging him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602), removing him from his mothers custody and committing him to the custody of the probation officer to determine a suitable placement after he was found to have committed robbery (Pen. Code, 211). Counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has informed her client in writing that a Wende brief was being filed and that defendant had the right to personally file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. No supplemental brief has been filed.
Background
On September 26, 2006, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging then 17-year-old defendants commission of a September 23 robbery.[1] At the October 19 jurisdictional hearing, victim Mario C. testified that after leaving a store and walking toward his apartment, defendant approached, stood in front of him and said, give me your phone. At the same time, defendant was reaching for his waist, and Mario believed defendant was trying to take something out of his waist to threaten Mario. At the entrance to the apartment, defendant grabbed at Mario in an attempt to get him into the hallway. After Mario handed defendant his phone, defendant gestured at Mario to give defendant his money. Mario then took off running chased by defendant. Mario was able to evade defendant and called police. When the police arrived, Mario pointed out defendant who was nearby talking on Marios phone. The police took defendant into custody and recovered Marios phone. On cross-examination Mario said that, at first, defendant asked if he could borrow Marios phone, but then demanded the phone after Mario said he could not borrow it.
Defendant testified that he was merely asking to borrow Marios phone to call his mother because his own phone was dead. Defendant said Mario gave him his phone and then ran off. Defendant denied demanding anything, touching, grabbing or chasing Mario, and said he intended to return the phone to him. Defendant also said that Mario spoke to him in Spanish, which he did not understand.
At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the court properly found true the robbery allegation and set the maximum term of confinement as five years. The probation departments dispositional report noted that defendant expressed no remorse for the victim and denied committing the robbery. It recommended defendant be placed in the Rites of Passage program under standard out-of-home probation conditions.
At the dispositional hearing, defendants counsel requested that the court permit defendant to return to Florida to live with his mother. The court stated it agreed with the probation departments placement recommendation and made the appropriate findings pursuant to declaring defendant a ward of the court. Defendant was given 40 days credit for time served and was ordered to pay a $100 restitution fine.
Defendant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, and appeared at every hearing. We conclude there are no arguable issues.
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
SIMONS, J.
We concur.
JONES, P.J.
NEEDHAM, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] In February 2004, defendant admitted possession of a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, 12101, subd. (a)(1), and, in February 2005, after his successful completion of probation, a prior Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition related thereto was dismissed.
