In re E.V.
Filed 12/10/08 In re E.V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B207510 |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.V., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ15688) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
Robert Ambrose, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In January 2008, the People filed a petition alleging that E.V. had committed the offense of misdemeanor vandalism. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602; Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a).) At an adjudication hearing in April 2008, Hawthorne Police Department Detective Derrick Limbacher testified that he was on patrol on August 6, 2007, when he saw E.V. and another minor jump on a short wall and start tagging or scribing onto a window of [an office] building. Detective Limbacher stopped his car, and E.V. and his cohort started to run, but were caught. After detaining E.V., the detective returned to the building, and saw the building was damaged with both scratched and written graffiti. E.V. cross-examined Detective Limbacher, but did not present any defense witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found the vandalism allegation to be true, sustained the petition, and placed E.V. home on probation.
E.V. filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent E.V. on appeal. On October 8, 2008, E.V.s appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. Our court then notified E.V. by letter that he could submit within 30 days any ground of appeal, argument or contention which he wished us to consider. E.V. has not responded to our letter. We have independently reviewed the record, and are satisfied that appointed counsel has fulfilled her duty, and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BIGELOW, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, Acting P. J. ONEILL, J.*
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Judge of the Ventura Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
