In re Julio N.
Filed 6/11/10 In re Julio N. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JULIO N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ____________________________________ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JULIO N., Defendant and Appellant. | B219054 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ 21358) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John C. Lawson, Commissioner. Affirmed.
________
Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________
On August 3, 2009, the district attorney filed a petition against Julio N. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1]alleging one felony count of attempted grand theft auto, in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 487, subdivision (d)(1). Julio N. denied the allegations of the petition. On August 21, 2009, the trial court held a hearing to adjudicate the matter, found the allegations of the petition true, and sustained the petition. The court also denied Julio N.s motions to dismiss and to reduce the count to a misdemeanor.
On September 2, 2009, the trial court ordered that Julio N. remain a ward of the court pursuant to section 602. The order further provided that Julio N. shall be taken from the custody of his parents and placed in the care, custody, and control of the probation officer. The court ordered that Julio N. be placed in a midterm camp community placement program, with a maximum period of confinement of four years and four months. Julio N. timely appealed.
The testimony at the adjudication hearing showed the following facts: At approximately 3:30 a.m. on July 31, 2009, Los Angeles County sheriffs deputies in an unmarked vehicle were conducting surveillance of a stolen car, parked on the street, that had been located by means of a lo-jack hit. In his testimony for the prosecution, one of the deputies testified that he saw another car carrying four males, including Julio N., pull up to the front of the stolen car. The males connected jumper cables between the two cars, and Julio N. and two of the other males took turns going into the stolen car and attempting to start it. Julio N. was subsequently detained and read his Miranda rights, and he agreed to speak to the deputies without a lawyer. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.) Julio N. admitted to one deputy that he had tried to start the car despite knowing it was stolen. (When interviewed by a second deputy, Julio N. admitted trying to start the car but did not admit that he knew it was stolen.)
We appointed counsel to represent Julio N. on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking us independently to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On March 30, 2010, we advised Julio N. that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119, 124.)
DISPOSITION
The order under appeal is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
We concur:
MALLANO, P. J.
CHANEY, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
