In re Kim P.
Filed 3/18/08 In re Kim P. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re KIM P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIM P., Defendant and Appellant. | A117693 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. OJ06003820) |
On June 13, 2006, appellant, minor Kim P., admitted allegations in a 602[1]petition of burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and automobile theft (Veh. Code, 10851). He was placed on probation. On October 25, 2006, another 602 petition was filed alleging three misdemeanors: burglary (count 1 - Pen. Code, 459); malicious mischief (count 2 - Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)(2)); and trespass (count 3 - Pen. Code, 602, subd. (l)). Following a contested hearing, the trial court sustained counts 1 and 3, and dismissed count 2. At the dispositional hearing, the minor was continued on probation.
Evidence adduced at the contested hearing established that appellant and Eddie, another minor, were present together inside the locked gates at Fremont High School on the evening of July 31, 2006. When confronted by the custodian, Eddie dropped a fan, a boom box, and a backpack. Appellant and Eddie then fled toward the gym side of the campus, out of the sight of the custodian. Oakland police, who were summoned to a burglary in progress, apprehended Eddie and appellant just outside the school premises. Inside the school, a fire extinguisher had been sprayed in a hallway, classroom doors had been opened, and certain items had been taken from the rooms.
Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and conclude that there are no arguable issues.
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The evidence supports the trial courts findings. There was no abuse of discretion in continuing wardship of appellant.
The minute orders of May 3 and May 8, 2006, list an incorrect subdivision for count 3, trespass. The correct violation is Penal Code section 602, subdivision (l). As corrected, the orders are affirmed.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
