In re Valentine G.
Filed 4/4/07 In re Valentine G. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re VALENTINE G., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VALENTINE G., Defendant and Appellant. | F051195 (Super. Ct. No. 01CEJ6013665) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Martin Suits, Commissioner.
Michelle Guardado, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer , Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Valentine G., a minor, admitted an allegation, set forth in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602), that he committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211 & 212.5, subd. (c)).[1] The court ordered appellant committed to the California Youth Authority,[2]and set appellants maximum period of confinement (MPC) (Welf. & Inst. Code, 731, subd. (b)) at five years two months.[3]
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
With respect to the instant offense, the report of the probation officer states that according to a law enforcement agency report, the following occurred on April 23, 2006. [A] witness stated that he looked over his fence and observed two Hispanic males punching and kicking the victim, . . . while [the victim] was on the ground. Upon further investigation, [appellant] was identified as one of the subjects assaulting the victim. The witness stated that the assault occurred for approximately 10 minutes. The witness then observed one of the subjects take the victims wallet and his alcohol. Appellant was arrested on May 10, 2006.
With respect to the prior adjudication of misdemeanor battery, the RPO states: On January 24, 2004, the minor was arrested for hitting a juvenile correctional officer with his shoulder.
Appellant was initially adjudged a ward of the court in 2002 based on findings that he committed three felonies: two counts of second degree burglary ( 459 & 460, subd. (b)) and assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1)).
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
*Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.
[1] Except as otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The California Youth Authority is now known as the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice. (Gov. Code, 12838.)
[3] The report of the probation officer recommends an MPC of five years two months, consisting of five years on the instant offense and two months on a prior adjudication of misdemeanor battery ( 242 & 243, subd. (a)). At the disposition hearing, the court stated: The Court previously admonished the minor of the possibility of aggravating previously sustained petitions. [] Consecutive sentences are imposed in that the offenses were committed at different times and different places. [] The crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other. [] The crimes involved separate acts of violence. The court then misspoke by saying the MPC was five years. The written COMMITMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, signed by the court, states the MPC the court meant to declare: five years two months.
