NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re B.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
|
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
B.E.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F077689
(Super. Ct. No. 514016)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ruben A. Villalobos, Judge.
Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant B.E. was committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) after he admitted allegations in a petition charging him with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).[1] Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2017 shortly before 1:20 a.m., as Phillip Fuentes walked out of a friend’s house in Keyes to his car, a male approached him from behind, put a knife to his throat and demanded his car keys. Fuentes hesitated and before he responded, the male stabbed him on the back of his head. The male then took Fuentes’s keys and wallet and he, three other males and a female got in Fuentes’s car and drove off. Ten minutes later, a male whom Fuentes identified as appellant, drove up to Fuentes in the car with his confederates still inside and asked Fuentes if he wanted his car back. As Fuentes walked toward the car, appellant drove away.
On July 6, 2017, appellant was arrested during a traffic stop. Appellant was 17 years old when he committed the robbery offense.
On July 10, 2017, the Stanislaus County District Attorney filed a petition charging appellant with carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)/count 1) and robbery (§ 211/count 2). Each count also alleged a personal use of a knife enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
On May 7, 2018, appellant admitted the robbery charge in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining count and the enhancements.
On June 1, 2018, the court aggregated appellant’s time from prior petitions, set his maximum term of confinement at six years, and committed him to the DJJ.
Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
