NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----
| In re S. O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | C083805
|
|
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
S. O. ,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
(Super. Ct. No. 16DQ00097)
|
A petition filed April 25, 2016, alleged the minor, S. O., came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed felony vandalism.
On November 8, 2016, a contested jurisdictional hearing was held. Around 1:00 a.m. on January 1, 2016, 17-year-old Jacob D., 15-year-old Rylan F., Crystal B., Amber B., Malik U., Jessie J., and the 17-year-old minor drank alcohol and walked around Oroville.[1] Rylan denied that he had been drinking. When the group saw a car parked in a county parking lot, the minor jumped on the car, shattering the windshield. Jacob admitted he jumped on the car as well. Rylan, who told the group not to do it and walked away when the jumping started, thought the minor, Jacob, Malik, and Jesse had jumped on the car. The group then went to Jacob’s house for the night. The next morning, 15-year-old Erik B. arrived at Jacob’s house. Erik thought that the minor, Malik, Amber, and Crystal were present besides Jacob and Rylan. Rylan thought everyone had left except for himself and Jacob. Jacob told Erik that they had “put a car in a coffin,” meaning they had jumped on it. The group returned to the car and Jacob jumped on it again, having Erik take a video for Snapchat.
On January 1, 2016, the Snapchat story was seen by a police officer’s son who reported it to his father. Jacob, Erik, and Rylan were contacted at Jacob’s house by a police officer. Erik told an officer that the minor had jumped on the car the previous night but did not want to be near the car the next day. At the hearing, Erik claimed it was a misunderstanding when he said the minor had jumped on the car. Initially, Jacob claimed he knew nothing about the damaged car. Jacob then admitted he had jumped on the car with Malik and the minor. Jacob claimed the minor damaged the windshield and had jumped on the hood. Rylan told an officer that the minor, Malik, Jessie, and Jacob had damaged the car and, when the group returned the next morning, Crystal, Amber, Erik, Jacob, Malik, and the minor were present. Rylan claimed he saw the minor jump on the hood and shatter the windshield. When interviewed, the minor denied having been involved or around the car when vandalized.
The minor testified he had been with Crystal but she had to leave. The minor met up with a friend and then encountered the others including Jacob who was the only one drinking. The minor claimed it was Malik’s idea to “fuck up” the car. The minor kept walking because he did not want to participate. The minor denied seeing anyone jumping on the car because he did not turn around. Jacob and Malik later told him, “ ‘We fuck up that car.’ ” They then went to Jacob’s house where the minor spent the night. The next morning, the minor went with Jacob, Malik, Rylan, and Erik to look at the car. Jacob wanted to show Erik. The minor stayed away from the group. The minor denied jumping on or damaging the car. The minor admitted, when interviewed by an officer, he had lied and claimed he had been at a restaurant when the car was damaged. The parties stipulated that the car sustained $3,097.71 in damage.
The juvenile court sustained the petition. The court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and placed him on formal probation, ordering him to pay restitution. The minor appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) 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 elapsed, and we received no communication from the minor. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
/s/
Robie, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
Hoch, J.
/s/
Renner, J.
[1] At the time of the hearing the minor was 18 years of age. The parties stipulated that the minor was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense.
