In re T.P.
Filed 12/16/08 In re T.P. CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.P., Defendant and Appellant. | A122095 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J37934) |
Counsel appointed for appellant T.P. has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Appellant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.
Our examination reveals that on May 5, 2008, Anthony Jones and Jeremy Ebert, asset protection associates at Wal-Mart, noticed two malesone of whom was subsequently identified as appellantin the electronics department nervously looking around the store and acting suspiciously. They observed appellant use a lighter or matches to burn the packaging of a pre-paid cell phone so the package could be removed from a security device. Appellant then placed the package in a shopping cart, and the two moved toward the toy department. Jones and Ebert followed, all the while observing the two males from out-of-sight.
Once in the toy department, appellant took out a knife and used it to open the cell phone package. He removed the phone and accessories, tossing the empty packaging behind some clothing and placing the cell phone in his front pocket. The two males then left the toy department, proceeded past numerous cash registers without making any attempt to pay for the phone, and exited the store.
Once outside, Jones and Ebert approached the two males and identified themselves as Wal-Mart security employees. Appellant pulled out a pretty big knife, telling them, Back off because I have a knife, and the two took off running towards a field. Not wanting to put themselves in danger, Jones and Ebert decided not to attempt to apprehend the two suspects; they did, however, give chase in order to see where the two were heading. According to both Jones and Ebert, appellant was wearing a green shirt and jeans and carrying a backpack, which Jones described as black. After losing sight of the two individuals, Jones contacted the police and provided a description of the suspects and where they were last seen.
Fairfield Police Officers Alex Valdez and Brad Collins responded to the call from dispatch concerning the theft. Based on the description provided by Jones, dispatch identified the suspects as a black male wearing a green shirt and a backpack and a black male juvenile wearing a gray shirt and with a yellow shirt underneath. Collins made contact with Jones and Ebert, who told the officer that the suspects were last seen running towards a field, so Collins and Valdez set up on opposite sides of the field and began searching. Valdez spotted two individuals who matched the suspects descriptions, and Collins, with the assistance of other responding officers, apprehended them. One of the individuals was wearing a green shirt and carrying a backpack, and both officers identified that individual as appellant. The officers recovered a knife from appellants pocket and a new cell phone from his backpack.
After Valdez read appellant his Miranda rights, appellant acknowledged that he had stolen the cell phone so he could sell it. He also acknowledged that he did have a knife, but claimed that when the security guards saw him with it, he was just holding it down at his side because he did not want to stab himself when he was running. Appellant told Valdez that he said something like Back off or Leave me alone to the security guards.
On May 9, 2008, the Solano County district attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) petition, alleging that appellant committed one count of felony second degree robbery by means of force and fear (Pen. Code, 211). The petition also alleged that appellant had previously been declared a ward on December 12, 2007.
Following a June 18, 2008 contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition to be true beyond a reasonable doubt and sustained count 1. The court referred the matter to probation and continued it to July 2, 2008, for disposition.
In a July 2, 2008 supplemental probation report, the probation department recommended that appellant be continued a ward of the court and committed to the Solano County Juvenile Detention Facility for nine months, with placement in the Challenge program if appropriate. The report noted that the current offense represent[ed] ongoing and escalating criminal behavior by appellant and that the nature of the offense, particularly when coupled with the fact that [appellant] was once again in possession of a knife, place[d] the community at risk.
At a disposition hearing on July 3, 2008, the court agreed with the probation department recommendation and committed appellant to the Challenge program, with a maximum period of confinement of six years, 10 months. Appellant was also ordered to attend drug and alcohol counseling, complete 100 hours of volunteer work, pay restitution as determined by the probation department, pay a $100 restitution fine, and abstain from weapons possession and the use of drugs and alcohol. Appellant was then placed at Challenge on July 8, 2008.
This timely appeal followed.
Appellant was represented by competent counsel who zealously guarded his rights and interests.
The courts finding that the allegations in the petition were true was supported by substantial evidence.
The maximum time of confinement was properly computed.
Our independent review having found no arguable issues that require briefing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
_________________________
Richman, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Haerle, Acting P.J.
_________________________
Lambden, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
