legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re R.S. CA3

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
In re R.S. CA3
By
05:21:2018

Filed 5/17/18 In re R.S. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----


In re R.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C084566


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. JJCJVDE20160002140)



Appointed counsel for minor R.S. asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor, we will affirm the judgment.
I
In November 2016, 14-year-old D.B. and his 13-year-old friend R.R. were approached by a group of boys including the minor and O.O. D.B. was wearing a rare pair of $250 Jordan 11 basketball shoes. D.B. heard O.O. ask R.R., “ ‘Where’s the rest of the money?’ ” R.R. responded, “ ‘We don’t have the rest,’ ” explaining “ ‘[w]e paid the six hundred and the rest to your other friend.’ ” D.B. later explained that he understood the dispute was about shoes that had been paid for with money a “kid stole from his parents,” and the parents wanted the money returned.
The group of boys kicked and punched D.B. and R.R. When D.B. fell to the ground, the minor removed D.B.’s shoes and fled. D.B. went to the hospital for a head injury. He spoke to officers and identified the minor and O.O. from a school yearbook. Two days after the attack, D.B.’s friend sent him a cell phone video of the attack which D.B. gave to officers.
An investigating officer reviewed the video and saw the minor punch D.B. and then use both hands to pull D.B.’s shoes off before running away. The officer recognized the minor and O.O. in the video from his prior contacts with them at the school. The officer searched the minor’s bedroom with his parents’ consent. The search revealed one live .32-caliber round, an empty magazine, and metal knuckles.
The minor’s mother testified and claimed that Officer Stewart never asked her or her husband whether the minor shared his bedroom with anyone. She claimed the minor shared his bedroom with a cousin who lived with the family for over a year and moved out in February 2016. Mother never saw the minor with the magazine, bullet, or metal knuckles. She did not see the minor with a pair of white shoes either.
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained allegations in an amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition that the minor committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 -- count 1), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) -- count 2), possession of metal knuckles (Pen. Code, § 21810 -- count 4), and possession of ammunition by a minor (Pen. Code, § 29650 -- count 5). The juvenile court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation subject to various terms and conditions including participation in the juvenile court work project for a period of 10 days, suspended pending successful completion of probation, community service of 40 hours, and victim restitution in an amount to be determined.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/S/
MAURO, J.



We concur:



/S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.



/S/
HOCH, J.




Description Appointed counsel for minor R.S. asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor, we will affirm the judgment.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 8 views. Averaging 8 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale