Filed 12/12/18 In re R.B. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
| In re R.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
|
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
R.B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E070422
(Super.Ct.No. J274114)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Winston S. Keh, Judge. Affirmed.
Renee Paradis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court found true that defendant and appellant R.B. (minor) committed two counts of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211/664). After it was determined minor’s mother resided in Victorville, the matter was transferred to the San Bernardino County Juvenile Court. The San Bernardino County Juvenile Court declared minor a ward of the court and placed minor on formal probation in the custody of his mother. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2017, at around 5:30 p.m., J.M.F. was parked in a blue Mazda pickup truck near the corner of 67th Street and Broadway in Los Angeles. J.M.F. used the pickup truck for gardening work, and the bed of the truck contained a lawn mower, weed whacker, rake, and gas tank. J.M.F. was in the driver’s seat of the truck, while his coworker, J.L., was seated in the passenger seat. As they were sitting in the vehicle, three black males (two juveniles and one adult) approached the truck. One of the males came to the passenger side window, and the other two stood near the back of the truck on the driver’s side. J.L. had seen the three males walking together down the street as they approached the pickup truck.
The male who approached the passenger window said, “‘Give me your wallets,’” and lifted his shirt at the waist to indicate he had a weapon. J.M.F. reached for his wallet and the male stated, “‘What you reaching for, cuz?’” One of the two teens near the bed of the truck was watching J.M.F. while the other was digging in the back of the truck. At that point, the juvenile who was looking at J.M.F. said, “‘Let’s go. Run.’” The three males then ran away from the vehicle.
A woman driving past J.M.F.’s vehicle told them that police officers were “‘on the next block.’” J.M.F. then made a U-turn to follow the fleeing suspects. The suspects went in and out of a cell phone store. Two officers were near their patrol car when alerted to the situation by J.M.F. and began chasing the suspects. Five minutes later, two juvenile suspects were identified by J.M.F. as two of the three who had approached his vehicle. At trial, J.L. identified minor as one of the two who had been near the truck bed on the driver’s side of the vehicle. J.M.F. was unable to recognize minor in court but had previously identified him to officers as one of the two juveniles on the driver’s side.
III
DISCUSSION
After minor appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issue, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to minor, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
