In re P.F.
Filed 8/22/12
In re P.F. CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 P.F.,
a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
P.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A135145
(Alameda
County
Super. Ct.
No. SJ1101810901)
Appellant
P.F. appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the
parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed
an opening brief in which no issues
are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as
required by People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436. Counsel has submitted a
declaration stating that appellant has been notified that no issues were being
raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under
personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring
to this court’s attention. No
appellant personally.
A
petition was filed by the
County District Attorney on December
15, 2011, seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), and alleging one count of
felony theft from the person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c); count one), and
one count of felony receiving stolen
property (Pen. Code, § 496; count two). The facts underlying the allegations are that
the victim was riding her bicycle in the early afternoon of October 17, 2011, with her laptop
computer in a basket on the back of her bicycle. She heard a “clink” sound, similar to the
sound made by her bike lock when she rides over a bump in the road, turned
around and saw two youths running in the opposite direction with her
laptop. Appellant was later identified
by a witness to the event as the person responsible for taking the laptop. When he was located by police after the
incident, appellant was found standing next to the stolen laptop.
The
district attorney filed a “Determination of Eligibility [for] Deferred Entry of
Judgment” on December 15, 2011.
appellant stipulated that the case could be heard by a temporary judge.
A
contested jurisdictional hearing was held on February 14 and 15 before a
temporary judge. At the conclusion of
the presentation of evidence, the juvenile court found the charge in count one
to be true. No finding was made as to
count two. Appellant was ordered
released to the custody of his parents to be supervised by GPS monitoring. Other conditions of release were specified by
the court.
A
dispositional report was filed by the probation department recommending that
appellant be granted probation with numerous conditions imposed.
A
dispositional hearing was held on March 29, at which time appellant was
adjudged a ward of the court. Probation
was granted with numerous conditions imposed, and appellant was released to the
custody of his parents. This timely
appeal followed.
We
have reviewed the entire record, and have concluded the jurisdictional findings
were supported by the evidence. There
was no error in the disposition, as it was fully supported factually, and was
chosen by the trial judge in accordance with applicable juvenile law
principles. Appellant was represented by
counsel throughout the proceedings, and we have concluded there are no
meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
RUVOLO,
P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
REARDON, J.
_________________________
SEPULVEDA, J.
the petition, he thereafter became ineligible for delayed entry of
judgment. (In re Joshua S. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 670.)
2012, unless otherwise indicated.
