In re Nicholas D.

Filed 1/9/07  In re Nicholas D. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  Robert G. Fowler, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            An original juvenile wardship petition was filed on April 5, 2006, which alleged that the minor came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) because he violated Penal Code sections 484-488, petty theft.  Thereafter, a jurisdictional hearing was held on May 18, 2006 and, after taking evidence, the juvenile court sustained the petition and found the violation to be true and declared the violation to be a misdemeanor.

            At the disposition hearing, appellant was declared a ward of the court, granted probation and placed into the custody of his mother at her home.

facts

            On September 28, 2006, the defendant took an iPod from the backpack of a fellow student during his fourth period class.  The assistant principal at Yucaipa High School spoke with defendant on September 30 at which time appellant admitted to Mr. Loomis that he had taken the iPod.

Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him.  Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

            We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

            We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

disposition

            The judgment is affirmed.

            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS       

RAMIREZ                             

                                                P.J.

We concur:

RICHLI                                  

                                             J.

KING                                     

                                             J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.