In re M.H.

Filed 1/14/10 In re M.H. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

Defendant M.H. appeals from a dispositional order continuing him as a ward of the court and committing him to a county rehabilitation facility for 270 days after he was found to have committed first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code,  459, 460, subd. (a)).[1] Defendants counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

I.

The victim left his home in Richmond for work on the morning of October 27, 2008, and returned the next day to discover that his television set, video game console, and other property had been stolen. The kitchen window looking out into the back yard was wide open and the screen outside the window had been removed. Defendants fingerprint was found on the window.

Defendant and his friend Corey were observed by Contra Costa Deputy Sheriff McQuoid around 8:00 p.m. on October 27, 2008, standing in front of a residence next door to that of the victim. They told McQuoid that they were waiting for a woman whose name they did not know. Corey then pointed and said, Oh, there she is . . . . When McQuoid turned to look where Corey was pointing, Corey ran away. McQuoid detained defendant at that point, and asked him how he had gotten there. Defendant first said that he had taken a bus and BART, and then said that he had ridden in a black sedan with paper license plates. The side gate to the residence next door to that of the victim was open, but McQuoid saw nothing unusual at that residence, and drove defendant to a bus stop where he could get a ride to BART.

Defendant moved to suppress evidence of his conflicting statements about how he had arrived at the scene (Welf. & Inst. Code,  700.1), and for a directed verdict (Welf. & Inst. Code,  701.1). After the motions were denied, defendant testified that he went with Corey when Corey drove his car to the home of a woman named Roshanda, who lived next door to the victim and was going to buy his car. They found a football on the sidewalk and played catch with it while they waited for Roshanda, who was running errands after getting off work. Defendant threw the football into the victims yard, got muddy when he hopped over the gate to retrieve it, and steadied himself with his hand against the victims house when he was brushing off the mud.

Defendant had previously been found to have committed felony attempted grand theft (Pen. Code,  487, subd. (c), 664), and felony threatening of a judge (Pen. Code,  76).[2]

II.

We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. The court assessed the credibility of the witnesses. Defendant was represented by counsel. His suppression and directed verdict motions were correctly denied. The contested jurisdictional hearing was fair, and the disposition was reasonable. We discern no errors in the proceedings. Substantial evidence supports the courts determination.

III.

This dispositional order is affirmed.

______________________

Marchiano, P.J.

We concur:

______________________

Margulies, J.

______________________

Banke, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] We disregard the statement in the timely notice of appeal that the appeal was to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court. (First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956, 959 [treating that erroneous statement as surplusage and deem[ing] the appeal as having been taken to the Court of Appeal].)

[2] We affirmed the jurisdictional finding as to the threat in In re M.H. (Dec. 9, 2008, A121258) [nonpub. opn.].