In re Emmanuel L.
Filed 3/2/07 In re Emmanuel L. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re EMMANUEL L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EMMANUEL L., Defendant and Appellant. | D049210 (Super. Ct. No. J198902) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.
Emmanuel L. admitted robbery (Pen. Code, 211)[1]while armed with a firearm ( 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The juvenile court declared him a continuing ward. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) It committed him to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) (formerly known as the California Youth Authority (CYA)) and set the maximum term of confinement at seven years six months: the five-year upper term for robbery enhanced one year for firearm armament with a consecutive year for a prior robbery true finding (one-third the middle term), four months for a prior malicious mischief true finding ( 594, subds. (a)(b)) and two months for a prior falsely identifying himself to a police officer true finding (one-third the misdemeanor terms.)
FACTS
On January 3, 2006, Christopher Carpenter was walking on Thorn Street when a car pulled alongside him. The passenger alighted from the vehicle and asked Carpenter where he was from and if he had anything on him. Emmanuel alighted from the driver's seat and displayed a handgun tucked in his waistband. The passenger searched Carpenter and took his wallet.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the maximum term was properly calculated; (2) whether Emmanuel was given notice of the maximum term; (3) whether there is a sufficient factual basis for the sentencing decision; and (4) whether Emmanuel has waived objection to the sentencing decision.
We granted Emmanuel permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Emmanuel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
[1] All references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
