In re William N.
Filed 3/29/06 In re William N. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re WILLIAM N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM N., Defendant and Appellant. | E038806 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ102686) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jean P. Leonard, Judge. Affirmed.
Lise Breakey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Minor represented by counsel went to trial before the juvenile court on a charge of first degree residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. The matter came before the juvenile court when the Riverside District Attorney's office filed a petition on August 27, 2004, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 charging minor with the above felony alleged to have taken place on June 11, 2004.
At the conclusion of the trial, including testimony by the minor in his own defense, the court found the residential burglary charge true. The dispositional hearing resulted in the court continuing minor's wardship. He was placed on probation with various terms and conditions including his completion of 15 to 30 days in the juvenile work program and payment of a $100 restitution fine pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 736. Wardship was to be terminated upon minor's successful completion of the work program and payment of restitution and all fines.[1]
Minor appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P.J.
HOLLENHORST
J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Attorneys.
[1] By the time of the trial and disposition, minor had turned 18. He had previously been given informal probation for possession of a knife at school and battery on school property. He successfully completed that probation in 2002. In 2003 minor was before the juvenile court admitting to a misdemeanor false report of a bomb and threat on a school official. He was declared a ward of the court and placed on formal probation, and his compliance as a ward was deemed satisfactory by his probation officer.
