In re M.Z.
Filed 8/28/08 In re M.Z. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.Z., Defendant and Appellant. | A121174 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ07007717) |
As relevant here, appellant, minor M.Z., was charged in a subsequent petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 with robbing victim Sumithra Bashyam of her car (count 1, Pen. Code, 211) and driving her car under the influence of alcohol (count 4, Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)). He admitted counts 1 and 4, and the remaining charges were dismissed. Appellant was continued as a ward of the court and ultimately placed at the Optimist Youth Home in Los Angeles.
According to the Fremont police report set forth in the probation report, victim Sumithra Bashyam was driving her minivan to the intersection of Montague and Paseo Padre Parkway when a young male wearing a dark colored hooded sweatshirt came up to the driver side door of the vehicle and pointed a gun at her and ordered her out of the vehicle. Bashyam grabbed her child and then exited the vehicle. Bashyam said the suspect began ransacking through the vehicle and then got into the drivers seat. As the suspect began to drive off, the suspect almost drove over Bashyam and her child. The minor fled in the vehicle and later collided with another parked car located on the northern side of Chaucer. He then fled the vehicle on foot and hid in some bushes nearby. The minor was located by authorities and taken into custody without incident.
Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief arguing 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 throughout the proceedings by counsel. His admissions were validly entered. There was no abuse of discretion in continuing appellant as a ward of the court and in ordering victim restitution.[1]
Judgment affirmed.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] At the restitution hearing, appellants counsel objected on the mistaken belief that the juvenile court was ordering restitution to the victims insurer. As the juvenile court observed, appellant was being properly ordered to make restitution to the actual direct victim, Ms. Bashyam, and not to her insurance company. (See People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226.)
