In re Carl B.
Filed 4/3/07 In re Carl B. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re CARL B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B191068 |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL B., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ27318) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie Davis, Referee. Affirmed.
Jonathan B. Steiner and Ann Krausz, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Carl B. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that as an aider and abettor, he committed vandalism causing damage under $400, in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor. He was placed in a short term camp-community placement program and the maximum period of confinement was determined to be one year and four months.
The evidence at the adjudication hearing established that on March 7, 2006, appellant was acting as lookout at 92nd Street and Vermont Avenue in the county of Los Angeles while another minor spray painted graffiti on the wall of a funeral home. Appellant was wearing gloves with blue spray paint on them, the color of the paint being sprayed on the wall. Appellant was arrested and following waiver of his Miranda [1]rights, stated he did not spray paint the wall but had previously given the can to one of the other minors. He claimed he was hanging out with the other two individuals because they were friends and . . . he was watching out for you guys, meaning the police.
Appellant testified he was not acting as a lookout for his friends and never told that to the police officers. Rather, appellant was on his way to the store when he was called over by the officers.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On December 5, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.
On January 8, 2007, we received a memorandum from Inglewood Juvenile Court indicating a subsequent trial court order and a certified copy of the minute order dated December 6, 2006. The minute order states that jurisdiction is terminated, the minor is released and that minor has been advised of his appellate rights regarding his appeal & minor wishes to have his case terminated.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, Acting P.J.
We concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
[1]Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
