Filed 8/3/17 In re Clayton C. CA5






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CLAYTON C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CLAYTON C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074653

(Super. Ct. No. 513791)


OPINION
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Valli K. Israels, Judge.
Randall H. Conner, 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 Clayton C. admitted a charge of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and a charge of attempted robbery (§§ 664/211) in a subsequent petition (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 602) and was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). After this court reversed the commitment order and remanded for further proceedings, the court recommitted appellant to the DJJ. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 15, 2014, in Alameda County, appellant and another juvenile approached a third juvenile and offered to sell him marijuana. When the third juvenile declined, appellant told him to hand over his wallet. The victim complied and appellant took $250 from the wallet and walked off with the second juvenile.
On November 18, 2014, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a petition that charged appellant with robbery and possession for sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359).
On November 26, 2014, in Alameda County appellant admitted the possession for sale of marijuana charge.
On December 9, 2014, the Stanislaus County Superior Court accepted transfer of the matter for disposition.
On December 23, 2014, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation on the condition he serve 39 days in juvenile hall with credit for
39 days served.
On July 21, 2015, at approximately 12:35 a.m., appellant and two other males tackled and punched a man at a park and took his car keys and glasses before fleeing. Appellant’s group also unsuccessfully attempted to take a cellphone from the man’s female companion. A short time later, after body slamming another man to the ground, appellant and his cohorts continued to hit and kick him. One of the blows hit the victim on the mouth and loosened some teeth. Appellant then fled with the man’s headphones, hat, and backpack.
On July 22, 2015, the Stanislaus County District Attorney filed a subsequent petition charging appellant with two counts of robbery and one count each of attempted robbery and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)).
On July 30, 2015, appellant admitted the attempted robbery charge and one of the robbery charges.
On September 21, 2015, the court committed appellant, who was then 17 years old, to the DJJ.
On June 17, 2016, this court found that the record lacked substantial evidence to find commitment to the Stanislaus County Juvenile Commitment Facility (JCF) would be ineffective. We also reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for the court to consider the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a commitment to the JCF.
(In re Clayton C. (June 17, 2016, F072474) [nonpub. opn.].)
Over a series of days in September and October 2016, the juvenile court received evidence and heard argument on this issue. On October 21, 2016, the court reaffirmed its previous commitment of appellant 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.