In re J.F.

Filed 12/3/08 In re J.F. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. John F. Vogt, Judge.

James M. Kehoe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

It was alleged in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) filed February 15, 2008, that appellant J.F., a minor, committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and that he personally used a firearm in the commission of that offense (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b)). In a supplemental wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 777) filed February 22, 2008, it was alleged, inter alia, that by committing the robbery, appellant violated his probation granted in a previous wardship proceeding.

On March 21, 2008, at the jurisdiction hearing, the court found the robbery allegation true; adjudged appellant a ward of the court; and found the enhancement allegation not true. It was agreed the supplemental petition was not before the court at the jurisdiction hearing.

On May 20, 2008, at the disposition hearing, the court ordered appellant committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice; declared appellants maximum period of physical confinement to be two years; and dismissed the probation-violation allegation.

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

Joaquin Espinosa testified to the following. At approximately 12:45 a.m. on January 13, 2008, he drove to the apartment complex where he lived, parked his car, and got out. He was walking toward the trunk of his car when two individuals, one of whom Espinosa identified in court as appellant, approached him. Appellant demanded money and pointed a handgun at Espinosa. The other person stood a few steps away from both of us. Espinosa stated that he did not have any money. Appellant then asked what Espinosa had in the front of the car. Espinosa put his keys, wallet ,and cell phone down on the trunk of the car, at which point appellant grabbed the items.

Fresno Police Detective Ramon Gines testified to the following. Gines showed Espinosa a photo lineup containing appellants photograph, and Espinosa pointed to [the photograph of appellant] and stated ... thats the one. Detective Gines placed appellants photo in the lineup because [appellants] fingerprint had been located inside of the victims stolen vehicle, which had been stolen the same night as the robbery.

Appellant testified he did not rob Espinosa and knew nothing about the robbery. Appellants mother testified that appellant lives with her, and on the night of the robbery, he came home at approximately 10:45 p.m. and was home the rest of the night.

Appellant was 17 years of age at the time of the instant offense.

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 attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.