In re Vincent S.
Filed 9/18/07 In re Vincent S. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re VINCENT S., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VINCENT S. Defendant and Appellant. | F051265 (Super. Ct. No. JJD060919) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge.
Adam Grace, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On June 17, 2006, Mary Paz was working at Taylors Hotdog stand when an unidentified man told her that he saw two suspects behind the business wearing masks. Paz walked to the back of the stand and saw Manuel S. holding a rifle style weapon and Matthew M. jumping over a small fence on the east side of the business. Paz walked back inside the business and instructed a coworker to call police. She also saw appellant, Vincent S., across the street whistling. Meanwhile, Matthew and Manuel fled on foot and a Pontiac drove off in the same direction.
A short time later, a police officer attempted to stop the Pontiac but it accelerated and ran a stop sign before Vincent and three other males abandoned it. However, police officers were able to locate and detain them. A shotgun was found on the floorboard of the Pontiacs rear seat.
On June 20, 2006, the district attorney filed a petition charging Vincent with attempted second degree robbery (count 1/Pen. Code, 664 & 211) and resisting
arrest (count 2/Pen. Code, 148, subd.(a)(1)). Count 1 also alleged that a principal was armed with a firearm during the commission of the attempted robbery offense (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (a)(1)).
On September 11, 2006, the court placed Vincent on probation in the custody of his parents.
Vincents appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Vincent has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Kane, J.
