In re Kurtis E.
Filed 6/25/07 In re Kurtis E. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re KURTIS E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KURTIS E., Defendant and Appellant. | A116680 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J06-02221) |
Kurtis E. appeals from orders entered on January 24, 2007, in the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court committing him to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for a period of one year. Appellants counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no meritorious issues to be argued. We affirm.
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed by the Contra Costa District Attorney on December 13, 2006, alleging that appellant had committed a violation of Penal Code sections 211/212.5, subdivision (c), second degree robbery. At the jurisdiction hearing held on January 4, 2007, the petition was amended to allege a second count of grand theft from the person. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (c).) Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to a violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (c) and the robbery count was dismissed. Appellant waived his constitutional rights and was advised of the direct consequences of his plea.
The disposition hearing was held on January 24, 2007. The court ordered appellant placed in the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for one year. The court also made the following additional orders: (1) appellant is to find employment within 30 days of his release from Orin Allen, otherwise he will be required to complete 300 hours of community service; (2) appellants earnings must be applied toward restitution to the victim; (3) appellant shall stay away from the Nordstrom/Macys parking lot at the Broadway Plaza in Walnut Creek; and (4) appellant is subject to a curfew commencing at 6:00 p.m. on all nights. A restitution fine of $100 was imposed and the court set a future hearing date to determine actual restitution to the victim.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on January 30, 2007.
The facts giving rise to the December 13, 2006 petition are set forth in the report and recommendation prepared by the probation officer on January 18, 2007. According to the report, on December 12, 2006, Salar Nader was attacked by three juveniles, including appellant, as he was walking to his car in the Nordstrom parking lot at Broadway Plaza in Walnut Creek. One of them grabbed Naders left hand, forcing him to drop his belongings. Witnesses reported that Nader was punched and kicked by all three juveniles over 25 times. Even after Nader was knocked to the ground, appellant along with the others continued to attack him. When the police officers arrived, they determined that Naders checkbooks, several credit cards, and approximately $80 in cash were missing. Witnesses recognized appellant from school and identified him by name. A search warrant was obtained and during a subsequent search of appellants home two credit card receipts with Naders name on them were recovered.
We have reviewed the entire record before us. Appellant was represented by competent counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Counsel advised appellant that a Wende brief would be filed and that appellant had 30 days to file a supplemental brief. Before appellant entered his nolo contendere plea, he was advised of the direct consequences and the constitutional rights he would be waiving. The court did not abuse its discretion by ordering appellant placed in the Orin Allen Rehabilitation YouthFacility nor by imposing the other additional orders. There are no issues that require further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Margulies, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Marchiano, P.J.
_________________________
Stein, J.
