In re J.E.








Filed 10/3/11 In re J.E. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B230548 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ47022)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.E., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mitchell Harris, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

The juvenile court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after finding defendant and appellant J.E. committed second degree robbery, in violation of Penal Code section 211. Defendant was committed to the Camp Community Placement Program, with a five-year maximum period of confinement. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On July 18, 2011, appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant was notified by letter of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days, but no brief has been received.
Our independent review of the record reveals that defendant and an accomplice were in the process of stealing the victim’s bicycle, which had been placed on the front of a bus. The victim exited the bus and pulled defendant off the bicycle. A fight ensued between defendant and the victim, during which the accomplice rode off with the bicycle. Defendant eventually led the victim to the location of his bicycle, which was recovered.
Based upon our review of the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s reasonable determination that defendant be committed to camp, we find no arguable contentions on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.)

KRIEGLER, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J.


ARMSTRONG, J.


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