In re Carlos B.
Filed 5/6/13 In
re Carlos B. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
In re
CARLOS B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
CARLOS
B.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
C071941
(Super. Ct. No.
JV131427)
This
case comes to us pursuant to
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and
113 Cal.App.4th 97 (Kevin S.). Having reviewed the record as required by
We
provide the following brief description of the facts and
procedural history of the case. (See
40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Sometime
between 1:45 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. on June 10, 2012, the minor,
Carlos B., and two other juveniles broke into the victim’s home by kicking in a
side door, leaving a footprint on the door.
The three juveniles ransacked the master bedroom, stealing jewelry from
the master bedroom but leaving the jewelry box behind. The juveniles also took four laptop
computers, new clothing, a television, and two game consoles. The minor’s fingerprint was found on the
jewelry box. The victim stated she did
not know the minor and he did not have permission to be inside her home. Surveillance video from a nearby residence
showed the three juveniles riding bicycles.
The juveniles matched the description given by a witness who had seen
them walking toward the victim’s home and later running away with bags in their
hands.
On
July 15,
2012, when officers went to the minor’s
home, the minor ran away. He jumped over
his back fence into the alley behind and, when he saw officers there, jumped
back over the fence. When he was caught,
he denied knowing anything about a burglary.
When asked why he fled, he claimed he was lost and meant to go a
different way to buy something to eat.
He did not have any money. The
minor’s residence was about 0.6 miles from the victim’s home.
A
petition filed July 17, 2012 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 602 alleged that the minor committed a felony violation of Penal
Code section 459, first degree burglary.
He previously had been declared a ward of the court in 2010 after
admitting driving or taking a vehicle without consent and resisting arrest,
both as misdemeanors. In 2011, he was
continued a ward after admitting misdemeanor accessory to burglary. On March 16, 2012, he was continued a ward for felony receiving stolen property.
Prior
to the jurisdictional hearing, the minor filed a motion to dismiss the petition
on the grounds of insufficient evidence,
arguing the only evidence was a fingerprint.
After the court denied the motion without prejudice, the minor admitted
the allegation in exchange for continued wardship and 100 days in juvenile
hall with 30 days’ credit, followed by 60 days on home
supervision. The court so ordered.
The
minor appealed. We appointed
appeal. Counsel filed an
of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether
there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436; Kevin S., supra, 113 Cal.App.4th
97.) The minor was advised by counsel of
the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of
filing of the opening brief. More than
30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from the
minor. Having undertaken an examination
of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to the minor.
We
do find an error in preparation of the written dispositional order dated August 13, 2012. Instead of stating that the
minor was to serve 100 days in juvenile hall, as orally agreed by the parties
and imposed by the court, the written order reflects that the minor was
committed to juvenile hall for only 10 days. We will order the dispositional order
corrected accordingly.
The
court is directed to prepare a corrected dispositional order reflecting that
the minor was committed to juvenile hall for 100 days. The dispositional order is affirmed.
MURRAY , J.
We
concur:
NICHOLSON
, Acting P. J.
DUARTE , J.
