In re C.C.



Filed 3/7/11 In re C.C. CA2/5




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re C.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B225921 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ17701)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.C., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert Ambrose, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.



The minor, C.C., appeals from an order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition and placing him home on probation. The February 23, 2010 petition filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged the minor with one count of second degree robbery, a felony (Pen. Code, § 211). After a contested adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegations the minor committed robbery and sustained the petition. The minor was declared a ward, ordered to pay restitution, and placed home on probation.
On October 22, 2009, 12-year-old, Julio L., was walking down the street when he was approached by the minor and a male companion. The minor, who was 16 years-old, was wearing a long Lakers jersey. Julio described the male as tall and white. The male told Julio to give him Julio’s iPod. Julio tried to get away but the minor and the male blocked Julio’s way. The male repeated, “Give me your iPod.” Julio said “Why‌” The minor then told Julio, “Give him the iPod.” When Julio refused, the male took out a knife. Julio, afraid, gave them the iPod. Julio talked to the police about 10 to 15 minutes after the incident. Julio identified the minor behind Julio’s school where the police had detained the minor. The minor was by himself and wearing a Lakers jersey. The Lakers jersey helped Julio to identify the minor. But, Julio also recognized the minor’s face.
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. After examination of the record, appellate counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. Instead, appellate counsel requested we independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On January 21, 2011, we advised the minor that he could file a supplemental opening brief on his own behalf within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. The minor has not filed any supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities. No argument exists favorable to the minor in the appeal. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The order sustaining the petition and ordering the minor placed home on probation is affirmed in all respects.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS


KUMAR, J.^*


We concur:


MOSK, Acting P. J.


KRIEGLER, J.


Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---