In re W.D.
Filed 9/8/09 In re W.D. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE W. D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | H034033 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV30804B) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. W. D., Defendant and Appellant. |
The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), which alleged that appellant W. D. committed a second degree robbery (Pen. Code 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). After a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition. The juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation in the custody of his parents.
I. Statement of Facts
On September 6, 2008, Athena Olmos was working as a loss prevention agent at Nordstroms when her supervisor Stephanie Lara notified her that three female juveniles were shoplifting. After they selected various items, they went to the first level of the store and met appellant and another male juvenile. Some individuals in the group made additional selections of merchandise. Eventually, they left the store without paying for the merchandise.
Olmos confronted one of the females and asked her to return to the store. About 15 to 20 feet away, Lara was talking to the other two females and appellant. Olmos went to assist Lara. As Olmos and Lara were trying to get appellant to return to the store, he pulled out a knife, started swinging it around, and said, Get back. He then yelled, Lets go, and grabbed the bags of merchandise. Appellant and the other juveniles left.
Appellant testified that he and his friends went to Nordstroms to steal clothes. He brought his knife so that he could remove the sensors from the clothing. After they left the store with the stolen merchandise, the security guards stopped them. One of the guards was holding one of the female juveniles. Appellant told the guard, Back off and let go of her. When the guard did not do so, he pulled out his knife. She released the juvenile. Appellant did not intend to obtain the bag with the stolen clothing.
II. Discussion
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts, but raises no issues. Appellant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
III. Disposition
The order is affirmed.
_______________________________
Mihara, J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J.
______________________________
Duffy, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
