In re Matthew S.
Filed 1/28/09 In re Matthew S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MATTHEW S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B208584 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ31239) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW S., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Irma J. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.
Katharine Eileen Greenebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
The juvenile court found that defendant and appellant Matthew S. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because he committed a felony, second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211.) The juvenile court declared Matthew a ward of the court and placed him on home probation on various terms and conditions, including the conditions that he perform 200 hours of community service, pay $100 to the restitution fund, and pay victim restitution of $399. The juvenile court awarded Matthew one day of credit and set a five-year maximum period of physical confinement.[1]
On appeal, Matthews appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there any arguable issues on appeal. We have reviewed the record and affirm the adjudication order.
BACKGROUND
A.S. testified that around 4:45 p.m. on November 27, 2007, she was talking on her cell phone as she walked on the Culver City High School campus. Matthew approached A.S. from behind, reached over her back and around her neck and tried to grab her cell phone. A.S. turned around and, apparently maintaining her grip on the phone, attempted to prevent Matthew from taking the phone. A.S. and Matthew both had hands on the phone and pulled at it for about 20 or 30 seconds. Ultimately, Matthew obtained the phone and ran away. During the incident, Matthews own phone fell out of his pocket. Matthew did not have his phone when he ran away. A.S. picked up Matthews phone and noticed that it had pictures of Matthew in it. A.S. contacted the police. The value of her phone was 399.
Matthew testified in his own behalf and admitted that he took A.S.s phone. Matthew testified that he approached her from behind, grabbed her phone, and ran. Matthew denied that he struggled over the phone with her. Matthew testified that he was able to obtain the phone as soon as he touched it.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Matthew in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to independently review the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. On December 4, 2008, we gave notice to Matthew that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Matthew did not submit a brief or letter. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Matthews attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The adjudication order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MOSK, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] A maximum period of physical confinement is to be set in situations where, unlike here, the minor is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 726, subd. (c).) Although the juvenile court erred in setting a maximum period of physical confinement in this case because it placed Matthew on probation in his mothers home, we did not ask the parties to submit supplemental briefs on this issue because that part of the probation order setting a maximum period of physical confinement is without legal effect. (In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, 573-574.)
