In re Eric H.
Filed 11/28/07 In re Eric H. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re ERIC H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC H., Defendant and Appellant. | E042341 (Super.Ct.No. J209132) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Marsha Slough, Judge. Affirmed.
Allison K. Stanley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A petition was filed pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 on July 3, 2006, alleging that the minor committed second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211), and first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459). On July 26, 2006, at the conclusion of the jurisdictional proceeding, the juvenile court found count one to be true and dismissed count two.
Thereafter, the minor appeared on August 9, 2006 for disposition. The juvenile court adopted the probation officers recommendations, and ordered the minor released from juvenile hall. The juvenile court then declared minor a ward of the court in San Bernardino County pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and minor was placed on probation in the care of his grandmother.
Subsequently, a new petition was filed on December 4, 2006 in Riverside County. The new petition alleged that the minor committed second-degree robbery pursuant to Penal Code section 211. That case was heard in the Riverside County juvenile court on January 16, 2007, and the court found the robbery allegation to be true. The case was then transferred to the County of San Bernardino for disposition because minor resides in San Bernardino County. The San Bernardino juvenile court adjudged that the minor should remain a ward of the court and that minor continue on probation under the original terms imposed on August 9, 2006. Further, the minor was ordered to serve 150 days at juvenile hall, with 65 days credit for time already served.
Statement of facts
The series of events at issue transpired on December 3, 2006 in the County of Riverside. The victim noticed two young men approaching her while she returned to her vehicle after a visit to the grocery store. It was approximately 5:00 p.m. and it was dark out except for streetlights in the parking lot.
The victim testified that she felt uncomfortable walking to her vehicle alone because the two young men she noticed appeared suspicious, both wearing hooded sweatshirts and dark sunglasses. One of the two gentlemen lunged at the victim and they engaged in a struggle over control of her purse. Eventually, the victim released control of her purse to the young man, who subsequently ran off with the purse. The victim did not identify the minor as the individual who took her purse, but testified only that the individual who took her purse was wearing a gray sweatshirt and sunglasses on his face.
Fabian Escobedo, and his brother, Jayme Escobedo, witnessed the aforementioned struggle. Fabian was approximately 25-30 feet away in the parking lot when he first viewed the struggle. However, Fabian could only see the side profile of the individual struggling with the victim. Fabian saw the suspect run off with the purse, and he and his brother proceeded to chase the suspect by vehicle, and subsequently, by foot. Fabian identified the minor as the individual who committed the robbery, however, Fabian could not recall the color of the sweatshirt that the suspect was wearing, nor did he recall that the suspect was wearing sunglasses.
Jayme Escobedo, Fabians brother, also identified the minor as the individual who committed the robbery, however, Jayme lost sight of the suspect for approximately five to eight minutes during the chase. Jayme testified that he was able to view the suspects face at certain moments during the chase, and for a few seconds he was about five-and-a-half feet away from the suspect.
Officer Edgar Castaneda took the minor into custody at the conclusion of the aforementioned chase. Officer Castaneda testified that the minor was wearing a light brown sweatshirt at the time he was taken into custody. Officer Castaneda had no personal knowledge of the robbery itself because he was not a witness.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
RICHLI
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
