Filed 10/30/18 In re V.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----
| In re V.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | C085469
|
|
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
V.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
(Super. Ct. No. JV135433)
|
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende and Kevin S., we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
Juvenile Delinquency History
The minor, V.H., has a juvenile delinquency history dating back to August 2013, when he was 12 years old, when a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) petition charged him with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)[1] and resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The minor admitted to committing grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)) as a reasonably related offense. The juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court and placed him on probation. Subsequent juvenile wardship petitions charged him with resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1) in January 2014; petty theft (§484, subd. (a)) and false representation to an officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)) in July 2014; two counts of robbery (§ 211) and one count of attempted robbery (§ 664/211) in October 2014; and robbery (§ 211) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) in January 2015. He admitted resisting a peace officer, petty theft, and two counts of robbery. Also, between October 2013 and February 2017 he admitted 10 violations of probation.
Facts Underlying Current Case
In April 2017, N.P. and the minor were dating. They got into an argument. N.P. was in the car yelling and cussing out the window. The minor picked up a rock and threw it at N.P.’s car, through the passenger side window. N.P.’s friend, K.A., was in the backseat on the passenger side, along with N.P.’s 11-month-old son, N.D. After he threw the rock, the minor ran down the street. N.P. accelerated and turned around, chasing him, and crashed through a fence.
Deputy Joshua Langensiepen was dispatched. When he arrived at the scene, N.P. drove toward him in a car matching the description on the call. The car had wood all over it, as it had run through a fence. The passenger front window of the car had been shattered. There was glass throughout the car and on all three occupants of the vehicle, and a rock was on the floorboard just below the car seat. N.P. had abrasions and minor lacerations; her son appeared to have a slight abrasion to his head.
Procedural History of Current Case
A violation of probation petition alleged assault likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) on K.A., N.P., and N.D., assault with a deadly weapon on K.A., N.P., and N.D. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), corporal injury on N.P., a person in a dating relationship with the minor (§ 273a, subd. (a)), shoplifting (§ 459.5), and false representation to an officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)).
The minor admitted shoplifting and false representation and the juvenile court dismissed the domestic violence count. Following a contested hearing on the remaining counts, the juvenile court found the remaining counts true beyond a reasonable doubt and sustained the violations of probation.
The juvenile court adjudged the minor a continued ward of the court and ordered him to serve 79 days in juvenile hall, with 79 days of credit, and then to be placed in a level B out-of-state placement. The juvenile court imposed probation conditions and found the maximum term of confinement on all sustained petitions to be seven years two months.
The minor appealed. We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, requested the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from the minor. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, and we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
RAYE , P. J.
MAURO , J.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
