In re J.G.
Filed 11/19/09 In re J.G. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re J. G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B214220 |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J. G., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TJ17805) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. S. Robert Ambrose, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
On December 27, 2008, a witness saw three guys approach an apartment building in the County of Los Angeles. One of the individuals wore a blue sweater and held a spray-can. While the other two looked around, the male in the blue sweater spray-painted graffiti on the buildings wall. The witness called police.
At the scene, officers detained appellant J. G., who was wearing a blue sweater. An officer testified that appellant had what appeared to be red paint on his hands and that there was matching red graffiti on the wall of the apartment building, which smelled like fresh paint. That same officer read appellant his Miranda rights and appellant indicated he understood his rights. Appellant waived his rights and told the officer he had written The Bratz on the wall. The officer gave appellant the opportunity to write a statement of apology, which appellant did.
On December 29, 2008, a Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602 petition was filed against appellant, charging him with felony vandalism (graffiti) resulting in more than $400 in damage. (Pen. Code, 594, subds. (a) and (b)(1).) After an adjudication, the referee amended the petition to state a lesser offense of misdemeanor vandalism resulting in less than $400 in damage. (Pen. Code, 594, subds. (a) and (b)(2)(A).) The referee sustained the petition as amended, placed appellant in the temporary care of the probation officer, ordered reunification services, and sent the matter to another department for disposition.
At the disposition hearing, the judge declared appellant a ward of the court, placed him in the care, custody and control of the probation officer, and ordered suitable placement in an open facility with a one-year maximum confinement. (See Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)(2)(A) [vandalism causing less than $400 in damage punishable by maximum term of one year, a fine, or both].) Appellant received 34 days of predisposition credit.
Appellant appealed. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently. On August 14, 2009, we advised appellant he personally had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We also directed his appointed counsel to send the record and opening brief to appellant immediately. Our letter to appellant was returned to us as undeliverable and we have received no response.
We have examined the record and are satisfied that appellants counsel has 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.3d 436, 441.)
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY, J.
We concur:
MALLANO, P. J.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
