>In re
Nicholas M.















Filed 9/18/12 In re Nicholas M. CA5

















NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT




>

In re NICHOLAS M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS M., Defendant and Appellant.	F064447 (Super. Ct. No. 512762) >OPINION

>THE COURT^*

APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus
County. Nan Cohan Jacobs, Judge.

Randall
Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office
of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

>

>-ooOoo-

Appellant, Nicholas M., a minor,
was initially adjudged a ward of the juvenile court in November 2011, based on
his admissions of allegations that he committed three misdemeanors: making a
criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422), vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd.
(b)(2)(A)), and resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code,
§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The court
placed appellant on probation.

In the instant case, in February
2012, the court found true an allegation that appellant committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§
459, 460, subd. (a)). Following the
subsequent disposition hearing, the court continued appellant as a ward of the
court and continued him on probation, with conditions of probation that
included confinement in juvenile hall for 60 days, with 22 days of
predisposition credit and with the final 15 days of the commitment to be served
on home confinement.

Appellant’s 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. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.)
Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit
additional briefing. We affirm.

FACTS

Prosecution Case

Appellant,
Vanessa Correa and Jacob W. lived in separate residences in a mobile home park
in Modesto. Carlos Ruiz testified that
he is an employee of the mobile home park.^[1] At approximately 1:00 p.m. on January 16,
2012, after a resident of the mobile home park named Jason “direct[ed] [his]
attention” to Correa’s mobile home, Ruiz saw that the home’s back door was
open, it appeared to be “broke[n],” and something had been used to pry it
open. Ruiz entered the mobile home
through the back door and saw Jacob, who was putting a “Wii” electronic game
console into a backpack, and appellant, who was standing six or seven feet away
from Jacob. Jacob was holding a knife or
a screwdriver and he was wearing a “beanie” that was “pulled down” so that it
covered part of his face. Appellant
looked “scared,” and said “oh shit” when Ruiz “first walked in.” Ruiz told Jacob to “let the things down” and
leave the mobile home. Jacob and
appellant then left and walked over to the mobile home where Jacob lived, and
Jacob entered through a window.
Appellant remained standing outside.


Correa
testified to the following: While she
was at work, she received several calls from the mobile home park manager
informing her that she had been the victim of a break-in. When she got home, she saw that her back door
was “broken from the frame” and that her “Wii stuff,” which she kept on top of
her “entertainment center,” was on the floor.


Defense Case

Appellant
testified that on January 16, 2012, he was walking in the direction of his
sister’s home at the mobile home park when he noticed that the back door of
another mobile home was open.^[2] He entered through the back door and
encountered Jacob. He asked Jacob why he
was there, and Jacob responded that he “wanted their Nintendo Wii.” Appellant was “just standing there watching
him, … waiting for him to put the stuff down, but he continued to put it in his
bag.”

Approximately
45 seconds after he entered, a person he knew as Jason walked in. Jason “told Jacob to leave the stuff there
and for both of us to leave the house.”
Appellant did so. He walked over
to Jacob’s residence, but when Jacob entered his mobile home through a window,
appellant left to go his friend’s house, three doors away.

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the
record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues
exist.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.