In re Desiree W.
Filed 6/28/11 In re Desiree W. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
In re DESIREE W., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, A131106
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J1001711)
DESIREE W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
_______________________________________/
Desiree W. (appellant) appeals from a disposition entered after she admitted committing grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)[1]), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Her counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that she had the right to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
On December 11, 2010, shortly before 1:00 a.m., appellant and two others attacked two women who were on the campus of San Francisco State University. During the course of the attack, appellant pulled one woman to the ground, kicked her in the head several times, and took her cell phone.
Based on these facts, a petition was filed alleging appellant came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because she had committed several criminal offenses.
The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant admitted the offenses we have set forth above. In exchange other counts and allegations were dismissed.
At disposition, the court ordered appellant to participate in a program at juvenile hall.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Before accepting appellant’s admission, the court made sure she understood the constitutional rights she was waiving. The court also made sure appellant understood the consequences of her admission. The disposition imposed was consistent with the plea agreement. We see no error in the sentence. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The disposition is affirmed.
_________________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Simons, J.
_________________________
Bruiniers, J.
