In re C.C.
Filed 8/16/13 In re C.C. CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
B246684
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. VJ40601)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
C.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court
of
County, Fumiko Wasserman, Judge. Affirmed.
Bruce G.
Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging
appellant C.C. committed petty theft in violation of Penal Code
section 484, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor. The court found appellant was a person
described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, adjudged appellant to
be a ward of the court, and ordered appellant committed to the joint
supervision of the Probation Department and the
(“DCFSâ€) for suitable placement.
FACTS
On October 10, 2010, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Downey Police Department Officer
Bryan Chaidez went to the loss prevention office of the Kohl’s department store
in the Stonewood Mall in response to a call.
There, he met loss prevention officer Alfred Retana and appellant.
Retana gave
Officer Chaidez a DVD containing video of the incident and a report. Officer Chaidez learned Retana had detained
appellant after watching her via a closed circuit-security camera system and
observing her approach a display, place an object an object in her bag, and
walk away from the display. Retana found
a “Tinkerbell†watch from the display in appellant’s bag.
Officer
Chaidez took appellant to the police station.
There, he read her Miranda
asked appellant to steal it for her.
After several requests from her sister, appellant took the watch from
the display and hid it in her bag. The
interview was not recorded.
Gilbert
Escobar, a loss prevention officer from the Stonewood Mall Kohl’s store,
explained that loss prevention officers monitor the store’s surveillance
cameras for suspicious activity. Escobar
identified the area shown in the video as the Juniors Department of his store,
covered by camera 3. In his experience,
the date and time stamp on the camera was accurate.
Following
the testimony in this matter, the juvenile court viewed the surveillance video
of appellant’s activities. A booking
photograph of appellant from the day of the incident was introduced into
evidence, showing her appearance that day.
DISCUSSION
Appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. Appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief
pursuant to
requested this court to independently review the record on appeal to determine
whether any arguable issues exist.
On June 5, 2013, we advised appellant she had 30 days in
which to personally submit any contentions
or issues which she wished us to consider.
No response has been received to date.
We have
examined the entire record and are satisfied appellant’s attorney has fully
complied with his responsibilities and no arguable
issues exist. (People v.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KUMAR,
J.
We concur:
TURNER,
P.J.
KRIEGLER, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
