P. v. Muhammad G.
Filed 8/31/06 P. v. Muhammad G. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MUHAMMAD G., Defendant and Appellant. | B186311 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TJ14296) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elva Soper, Judge. Affirmed.
Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Minor Muhammad G. (appellant) was declared a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after admitting to allegations that he committed second degree robbery.[1] (Pen. Code, § 211.) The petition originally alleged both the robbery charge and a charge of resisting a police officer. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) Appellant admitted the robbery allegation in exchange for an agreement to drop the resisting arrest charge, along with a five-year commitment to the California Youth Authority. On July 28, 2005, the waivers and plea were taken and the court ordered a maximum confinement period of five years at the CYA. Appellant then timely filed a notice of appeal from that order.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. On March 30, 2006, after examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. The brief included a declaration stating that counsel had informed appellant of appellant’s right to file a supplemental brief. On April 4, 2006, we advised appellant he had 30 days to submit a brief or letter addressing any contentions he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
RUBIN, J.
We concur:
COOPER, P. J. BOLAND, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
[1] The only evidence of what happened is found in the probation officer’s report, which states that appellant approached a man, stuck a gun in his side, and demanded the man’s money and cell phone. The victim turned over his phone, but had no money.
