In re K.S.
Filed 1/23/13 In re K.S. CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FOUR
In re K.S., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B240054
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
K.S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. FJ49470)
APPEAL from
an adjudication of the Superior Court
of
County, , Robin Sloan Miller, Judge. Affirmed.
Courtney M.
Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
>
K.S.
appeals from a juvenile court
adjudication finding he had violated Penal Code section 459, declaring the
offense to be a felony, and declaring he would remain a ward pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In a prior
juvenile matter, appellant admitted to having been a minor in
in violation of former Penal Code section 12101 (now codified in Pen. Code, §
29610). The offense was declared a
felony, appellant was made a ward pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 602, and he was ordered home on probation for a maximum term of three
years.
Appellant
was still on probation when he committed the current offense a few months
later. The victim left her home at 1218
West 38th Street in Los
Angeles to go to a nearby market. She locked the doors and closed the windows
before she left. On her return fifteen
minutes later, she discovered the back door had been broken and the interior
ransacked. Gold jewelry, a laptop
computer, and cash were taken.
Los Angeles
Police Officer Cedric Washington
was on duty in south central Los Angeles
the same day. He saw appellant and an
adult companion, Rudolph Engleton, walk up to the front door of a single family
residence. Appellant was wearing a
hooded sweatshirt. He knocked on the
door while Engleton remained on the sidewalk, looking in all directions. When the inner front door was opened,
appellant and Engleton walked away.
Based on prior experience with residential burglaries in this area,
Officer Washington thought this behavior was suspicious. Typically, burglars wearing hooded
sweatshirts would knock on the door of a residence. If someone answered, the burglar would ask
for someone, say it was the wrong house, and walk away. If no one answered, they would use a pry bar
or kick a door in, or break a window, to gain entry to take property. Believing this was what appellant and
Engleton were doing, Officer Washington contacted his other partners and had
them set up a loose perimeter around the area.
He continued to watch the two until appellant disappeared into the
courtyard of the Engleton’s residence on 38th Street.
Officer
Washington directed another officer to check on the residence at 1218
West 38th street (the victim’s home) to see if it
had been broken into. He then went to
that residence himself and saw that the rear door was damaged and the interior
ransacked. Officer Washington and other officers went to Engleton’s residence
and found the laptop and jewelry taken from the victim’s home. He also found receipts with the victim’s name
on them.
Los Angeles
Police Officer Bryan Thayer was involved in setting up the two-block perimeter
requested by Officer Washington. He
observed appellant walking in an alley in the area. He and Engleton climbed a fence at the rear
of the victim’s residence. Engleton was
holding a screwdriver or crowbar. Ten
minutes later, appellant and his companion climbed back over the fence into the
alley. The companion was carrying an
object that looked like a black computer or similar object. Appellant and the companion were detained by
other officers.
Appellant
testified in his own behalf. He
testified that on the relevant day, he was riding his bike to do some
errands. A red Camaro driven by an
unknown woman drove up, with Engleton in the from passenger seat. Engleton told appellant to put the bicycle in
his yard so he could give appellant a ride to do his errands. Appellant did so and got into the
Camaro. Police officers stopped the car
as they drove. He denied going into
anyone else’s house that day.
The court
found the allegations of the petition true and sustained the
remain a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,
with a maximum period of confinement of six years, eight months. Care, custody and control of appellant was
placed with probation for camp community placement. All prior orders in the earlier probation
were to remain in effect.
Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We
appointed counsel to represent
appellant on appeal. Appointed counsel
filed an appellate brief raising no issues, but asking this court to
independently review the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442. We advised appellant that he had 30 days
within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or arguments he
wished this court to consider. No
response was received.
We have
independently reviewed the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442, and find no arguable
issues that could aid appellant.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE,
J.
MANELLA,
J.
