In re Robert R.
Filed 9/18/12 In re Robert R. CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
ONE
In re ROBERT R., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B238925
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. FJ48731)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROBERT R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County, Cynthia Loo, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Zoe Rawson,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
>
On August 16, 2011, Robert R., then 16
years old, was in a J.C. Penney store in Montebello
with two friends. Robert R. took a
black-and-white striped shirt from a rack, and put it on over his white
t-shirt. After walking around some more,
he exited the store without going to any cash register, still wearing the
shirt.
A J.C.
Penney loss prevention officer approached Robert R. outside the store and
placed him under a private person’s arrest.
Robert R. admitted to taking the shirt without paying for it. Back inside the store, the loss prevention
officer filled out an acknowledgment form which stated that Robert R. took the
shirt. The officer asked Robert R., who
was handcuffed, if he wanted to sign it; he did not recall whether he told
Robert R. he had the option not to sign.
Robert R. signed the acknowledgment form.
The trial
court found true one misdemeanor count of petty
theft in violation of Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a). The court declared Robert R. to be a person
described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and a ward of the court,
and ordered Robert R. be placed home on probation. Robert R. filed a timely notice of appeal.
We
appointed counsel to represent Robert
R. on appeal. After examining the
record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court
to independently review the record. On July 20, 2012, we advised Robert R.
he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to
consider. To date, we have received no
response.
We have
examined the entire record and are satisfied that Robert R.’s counsel has fully
complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.4th 436, 441.)
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
JOHNSON,
J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J.
CHANEY, J.
