NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re R.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
|
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
R.A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F077340
(Super. Ct. No. JJD071137)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugo J. Loza, Judge.
Patrick J. Hoynoski, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
The court adjudged appellant R.A. a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after it sustained allegations charging him with felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2017, at El Diamante High School in Visalia, while on their way to sixth period class, appellant, Angel A., and Lacey L., stopped by instructor Nathan Garland’s car and took turns jumping or falling backwards on its hood. At approximately 3:15 p.m., that day, Garland discovered that the hood on his car had been “smashed.” He showed the car to assistant principal Andrew Bishop, who noted that the hood of the car was caved in as if someone had jumped on top of it.[1]
On May 11, 2017, Bishop contacted appellant and discussed the damage to Garland’s car. After Bishop asked appellant to tell him what happened, appellant stated that he and two other students, Lacey and Angel, were “sliding on the car” the day before.
As part of his investigation into the incident, Youth Service Officer Robert Zieg spoke with Angel and he admitted that he, appellant and Lacey had jumped on the hood of Garland’s car.
On December 6, 2017, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a wardship petition charging appellant with felony vandalism. Also on that date, the district attorney filed a notification that appellant was eligible for deferred entry of judgment.
On March 12, 2018, appellant declined deferred entry of judgment and following a jurisdictional hearing, the court sustained the allegations in the petition.
On April 2, 2018, the court placed appellant on probation.
Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
