In re A.S.
Filed 8/31/09 In re A.S. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.S., Defendant and Appellant. | A124187 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J39071) |
Sixteen-year-old A.S. (appellant) appeals from a dispositional order placing her on probation. Appellants counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the order.
Factual and Procedural Background
On March 25, 2008, the Contra Costa County district attorney filed an original wardship petition alleging appellant committed first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a)) on March 7, 2008. On June 9, 2008, the district attorney amended the petition to add an allegation that appellant committed another first degree residential burglary on March 4, 2008.
March 4, 2008, incident
At a contested jurisdictional hearing, V.W. testified that on March 4, 2008, she returned home from work and noticed that the glass in her garage window was gone and her front door was cracked open. She called the police as she walked inside her house and noticed that her daughters PlayStation 2 was missing. Her daughters room got [her] attention because it had been torn apart. The bed was all messed up, and things were pulled out of the closet, . . . like it had been ransacked, which was . . . not how [her daughter] leaves her room. Her daughters handheld PSP player (a videogame), her tennis shoes, and some of her video games were missing. V.W. looked in the entryway closet and found the glass from her garage window stacked up in the closet. She thought [it] was really bizarre that the pieces [of glass] that came out of the garage window were actually stacked up in that closet. The police later collected the glass. She testified she did not know or recognize appellant and had not given her permission to enter her house that day or to take any items.
Police officer Alexander Abetkov testified that on March 4, 2008, at about 5:12 p.m., he responded to a house in Hercules for a call of a residential burglary that had occurred. He collected some window pane glass from inside a closet after the resident of the house pointed them out to him, and he processed seven pieces of the glass for fingerprints. He noted the glass was approximately the same size as the glass that was missing from a window in the garage. He applied fingerprint powder to the glass and lifted four latent fingerprints he found onto white cards. He submitted the cards to another police officer who booked them into evidence for further processing.
Stephanie Souza, a fingerprint examiner for the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department Crime Laboratory, testified she is authorized to examine, compare and make identifications based on fingerprints. She received fingerprint cards from the Hercules police department and compared them to known fingerprints, which are fingerprints that are intentionally recorded (with the persons consent and cooperation) and are from a known source. She testified that the fingerprint cards matched appellants fingerprints, which had been collected by the Richmond police department on October 10, 2007.
March 7, 2008, incident
J.S. testified he was home on March 7, 2008, at about 10:30 a.m., looking outside a window, when he noticed a girl and two boys playing in front of his neighbors house across the street. He continued to watch as the girl walked up to a dog that was inside his neighbors house. The girl tapped on the window as if to get the dogs attention and to see if the dog [would] bite or if the dog was violent. The boys ran around to the side of the house and went inside the fence. J.S. called the police. He testified he watched the girl and the boys for about ten minutes before he called the police and was 75 percent sure the girl he saw on March 7, 2008, was appellant.
M.G. testified he left for work at about 6:30 a.m. on March 7, 2008. He returned home at about 3 p.m. after the police called to tell him he needed to come home. When he returned, he noticed that everything, including a blanket and his sons hats, was on the floor and the laptop, a digital camera, and everything in the backpack was missing. Several days after the incident, the police called him and returned the digital camera to him. M.G. further testified there is a doggy door in his house that gives his dog access in and out of the house. The doggy door is small but if guys are skinny, they get in from there. He testified he did not know appellant and had not given her permission to be in his house or yard that day.
Police officer Aaron Tan testified he was dispatched to a house in Hercules on March 7, 2008, for a residential burglary in progress. He walked to a gate on the east side of the house and was trying to figure out how to open the padlocked gate to gain access to the backyard when he saw a person, whom he identified in court as appellant, r[u]n out from behind the house. Appellant appeared startled. Tan told appellant he was a police officer and told her to stop, but she ran back towards the back side of the house. Tan kicked the gate open to gain entry into the backyard but was met with a large brown and white Pit-Bull dog which caused [him] to retreat and close the gate. He was not able to pursue appellant, and that was the last [he] saw of her that day. Two or three days later, another police officer asked Tan to come to a school to see if he could identify a girl who was in custody as the person he saw on the day of the burglary. Tan went to the school, saw appellant, and positively identified her.
The juvenile court sustained the petition as to both counts of first degree burglary. On December 24, 2008, appellants case was transferred to the juvenile court in Solano County. At a February 24, 2009, dispositional hearing, the juvenile court declared wardship, placed appellant in her parents care, and granted probation under various conditions, including participating in a theft offender program, submitting to a curfew, attending school regularly, and completing 100 hours of community service. The juvenile court also ordered appellant to pay a restitution fine and victim restitution. Appellants maximum term of confinement was set at seven years four months, with 34 days of credit.
Discussion
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts findings that appellant committed first degree residential burglary on March 4, 2008, and March 7, 2008. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the petition as to both counts. Further, there is no indication probation was improper in this case. Appellant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings and appeared at each hearing. She has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal. We have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no arguable issues therein. (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
Disposition
The dispositional order is affirmed.
_________________________
McGuiness, P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Pollak, J.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
