In re David C.
Filed 6/1/07 In re David 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 DAVID C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID C., Defendant and Appellant. | F051129 (Super. Ct. No. 03JQ0205F) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. George L. Orndoff, Judge.
Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On July 22, 2006, appellant David C. and another juvenile approached nine-year-old Zachery F. at a skate park in Hanford and pushed him against a fence. David then reached into Zacherys pants pocket and took $10. Zacherys friend followed David and his friend to a restaurant and retrieved $6 from David, which he gave back to Zachery.
Later that day Zacherys father called the police to report that Zachery had been robbed and assaulted. An officer went to Zacherys house and drove him by where David and another juvenile had been detained. After Zachery identified David as the person who robbed him, David was arrested and detained in juvenile hall.
On August 28, 2006, the juvenile court aggregated the time from previous adjudications and committed David to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice Division, for a maximum term of physical confinement of eight years eight months.
Davids 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 (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) David has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we conclude that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Dawson, J. and Kane, J.
