In re Mario R.

Filed 10/25/06 In re Mario R. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Mario R. appeals from a jurisdictional order sustaining a robbery allegation made against him in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, and from the juvenile court’s dispositional order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him on probation. Appellant’s counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Findings and Orders Appealed From

On March 2, 2006, an amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition charged appellant with one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and one count of attempted extortion (Pen. Code, § 524). These allegations went to a contested hearing, after which the juvenile court sustained the robbery allegation, but did not sustain the attempted extortion allegation. Appellant was made a ward of the court and placed on probation with custody to remain with his mother.

At disposition, appellant’s maximum confinement time was determined to be five years four months, and he was given credit for time served of 43 days. The court imposed a restitution fine (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6) and ordered payment in the amount of $1,000 for the cost of legal services provided to appellant by the county (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 903.1). The court also ordered appellant to abide by numerous probation conditions and to submit DNA samples pursuant to Penal Code section 296.1. However, the court “reserved“ the DNA order pending a disposition of the present appeal, and set a six-month review date regarding the DNA sample.

Appellant timely appealed.

Facts Pertaining to Sustained Allegation

Jose E., a 14-year-old acquaintance of appellant’s, testified at the jurisdictional hearing that he was walking home by himself on February 8, 2006, when appellant saw him and walked across the street to talk to him. Appellant asked Jose for $5. Jose told appellant he did not have any money. Appellant responded, “I know you have money. You always have money.” Jose repeated that he did not have any money and told appellant, “Just let me go.” Appellant told Jose that if he did not give him the $5, appellant or a friend of his who was standing across the street would come up to him and take everything he had. Jose was afraid because he had seen this kind of thing before and understood that if he did not turn over the money he would be jumped and beaten. Jose gave appellant the $5 even though he did not want to. He testified that his choice was to “either give him the money or possibly get hurt,” so he gave appellant the money because he “didn’t feel like getting hurt.” After getting the money, appellant let Jose continue walking home.

Appellant did not testify at the jurisdictional hearing. He told the probation department that he never robbed or threatened Jose in any way.

DNA Order

The juvenile court ordered appellant to submit samples for permanent DNA databank collection pursuant to Penal Code section 296. Section 296 states in relevant part: “The following persons shall provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required pursuant to this chapter for law enforcement identification analysis: (1) Any person, including any juvenile, who is convicted of or pleads guilty or no contest to any felony offense, or is found not guilty by reason of insanity of any felony offense, or any juvenile who is adjudicated under Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for committing any felony offense. . . .”

Penal Code section 296.1, subdivision (a)(3)(A)(i) provides in relevant part: “Any person, including any juvenile, who has a record of any past or present conviction or adjudication for an offense set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 296, and who is on probation . . . for any felony or misdemeanor offense, whether or not that . . . offense is one set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 296, shall provide buccal swab samples and thumb and palm print impressions and any blood specimens required pursuant to this chapter, if: (i) The person has a record of any past or present . . . adjudication as a ward of the court in California of a qualifying offense described in subdivision (a) of Section 296 . . . .”

Wende Findings

Appellant was represented by competent counsel throughout the proceedings.

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that appellant committed the offense of robbery, and no evidentiary errors were committed.

There were no errors in the disposition.

The order adjudicating appellant a ward of the court, and placing him with his mother under probation supervision is proper.

There was no error in the order requiring appellant to submit DNA samples.

There are no legal issues that require further briefing.

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Margulies, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Marchiano, P.J.

_________________________

Swager, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.