In re C.S.
Filed 1/15/09 In re C.S. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re C.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B208468 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ39113) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.S., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert Totten, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Jean Ballentine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * * *
A juvenile court petition, filed on April 2, 2008, alleged that 17-year-old C.S. should be made a ward of the court because he committed a second degree robbery.
On April 17, 2008, C.S. was ordered detained at juvenile hall.
The adjudication hearing occurred on May 19, 2008. The evidence showed that C.S. and an accomplice approached R.G. at a bus stop and forced him to give up $3 and an iPod. The juvenile court sustained the petition and proceeded immediately to disposition. It placed C.S. in the Camp Community Placement program for six months, with a recommendation of fire camp or forestry. It added 130 hours of community service and set the maximum commitment time at 10 years four months.
The following day, C.S. filed a notice of appeal. His appointed counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel successfully obtained from the juvenile court a correction of the May 19, 2008 minute order, to show 90 days of predisposition credit. C.S. was notified that he could file his own brief, and has not done so.
From our review of the record, we are satisfied that C.S.s counsel on appeal has fully complied with her responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v.Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
FLIER, J.
We concur: RUBIN, Acting P. J. ONEILL, J.*
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Judge of the Ventura County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
