In re Javier Z.
Filed 11/1/07 In re Javier Z. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re JAVIER Z., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAVIER Z., Defendant and Appellant. | F053335 (Super. Ct. No. JW113602-00) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.
Alison E. Kaylor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
It was alleged in a juvenile dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300)[1]filed March 6, 2007,[2]that, inter alia, appellant came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g). On March 7, the court found the allegations of this petition true, ordered appellant removed from the physical custody of his parent(s) or guardian(s) and placed responsibility for temporary placement and care of appellant with the Kern County Department of Human Services.
On May 10, 2007, a juvenile wardship petition ( 602) was filed in which it was alleged that on March 2, appellant committed petty theft (Pen. Code, 488).
On May 24, the juvenile court ordered that a joint assessment be prepared pursuant to section 241.1. In a joint assessment report filed June 5, it was recommended that wardship was appropriate for appellant.
At the jurisdiction hearing on June 27, the court found the allegation of the wardship petition true and released appellant to the custody of the Beverly Group Home (BGH). On July 16, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court, placed him on probation and released him to the custody of BGH staff for transportation to BGH. The instant appeal, i.e., the appeal in the wardship matter, followed.
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
FACTS
Heather Grady testified to the following. On March 2, at approximately 3:25 p.m., she was working in a department store as a loss prevention officer when she observed appellant and a female enter the store together. While the female was selecting multiple amounts of merchandise, appellant was sort of like looking around, ... at the camera area in the ceiling [and] ... around the sales floor. The female put several items in her purse. At one point, appellant selected a pair of sunglasses from a display, removed the price tag and handed the item to the female, who then put it in her purse. Thereafter, appellant and the female walked out of store, passing several open cash registers, each staffed by a store employee. Neither appellant nor the female paid for the items the female had placed in her purse.
Appellant testified the he did not recall tearing the price tag off of a pair of sunglasses.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Levy, J.
[1] Except as otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[2] All references to dates of events are to dates in 2007.
