In re Savino H.

In re Savino H.

Filed 9/22/08 In re Savino H. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re SAVINO H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B203510
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAVINO H., Defendant and Appellant.	(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ 30435)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Irma J. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.

Kiana Sloan-Hillier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

_

On May 10, 2007, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that Savino H., 17 years old, had committed second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. On September 17, 2007, at the adjudication hearing, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations of the petition were true and declared Savino a ward of the court. The court placed Savino on probation in his parents home, imposed various probation conditions, and declared a maximum confinement period of five years.

On November 2, 2007, Savino filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us independently to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On June 16, 2008, we advised Savino that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date we have received no response.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Savinos appellate attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

At the adjudication hearing, the fourteen-year-old robbery victim testified that on May 8, 2007, he rode his bicycle past a bus stop where Savino and a few of his friends were waiting. One of the friends, who knew the victim from school, asked the victim where he was froma gang challengeand the victim replied, I dont bang. The friend said, Yes you do, and grabbed the victims backpack, causing him to fall off his bike. While Savinos friends hit and kicked the victim, Savino took the victims bike and rode away. Police later apprehended Savino as he was riding the bike, and the victim identified him as the person who took his bike. Savino testified that the fight between the victim and his assailants was already in progress when he arrived at the bus stop, found the abandoned bike, and rode it home to get bus money. A friend of Savinos testified that Savino did not hit or kick anyone but did take the bike.

Finding no error, we affirm the order.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

We concur:

MALLANO, P. J.

HASTINGS, J.^*

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^* Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.