In re J.O.
Filed 3/4/13 In re J.O. CA6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE J.O., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
H038484
(Santa Cruz
County
Super. Ct.
No. J22099)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
J.O.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
Minor J.O. (J.O.) appeals from a judgment of
the juvenile court. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant
to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues are
raised. On October 22, 2012, we notified J.O. of his counsel's brief and
gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any
grounds or argument he might wish to have considered by this court. That time has elapsed and J.O. has not
submitted a letter or brief. We have
reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's
jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
in the Juvenile Court
The juvenile court
continued J.O. as a ward of the court after sustaining an amended petition
filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.
Penal Code section 211 (count one), and resisted arrest in violation of Penal
Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (count two) as alleged in the
petition. On June 19, 2012, the court removed J.O. from the custody of
his parent and guardian. The court
committed him to the probation department for placement in a ranch camp program
under specified terms and conditions.
The court set the maximum period of confinement at eight years, eight
months.
predisposition custody credit. J.O.
filed a timely notice of appeal.
The evidence at the contested
2012, at approximately
7:30
p.m. Armando Reyes was
walking to a local store when he felt as if someone was following him. When he turned around, J.O., who Reyes knew,
told Reyes to give him his money or he would be stabbed; J.O. told Reyes he
wanted $100. Reyes did not have that
amount of money on him, but gave J.O. $20.
Reyes testified that he was afraid he would be stabbed. Although Reyes did not see a knife, J.O. made
a gesture, putting his hand into his pocket, which made Reyes fear there was a
knife.
Watsonville Police Officer Santana
investigated the aforementioned incident.
Reyes told Officer Santana that J.O. was about two feet away from him
when he demanded the money. Officer
Santana described Reyes's demeanor as "scared."
Subsequently, Watsonville Police
Officers Davis, Figueroa, Banuelos, and Johnston, as well as Corporal Fulgoni
went to J.O.'s house because of the alleged robbery. Since J.O. was on probation, they intended to
conduct a probation search. As Officer
Davis knocked on the front door, Officer Banuelos went to the back of the
house. After J.O.'s mother opened the
front door, Officer Davis heard over his radio Officer Banuelos saying that
someone was coming through the back door.
Officer Banuelos watched J.O. walk
out of the back door. After the two made
eye contact, J.O. began to walk away from Officer Banuelos. Officer Banuelos told J.O. to stop, but J.O.
continued to walk away. Officer
Banuelos grabbed J.O.'s arm. In
response, J.O. tensed his body and attempted to pull away from the
officer. J.O. formed a fist with his
right hand; it appeared to the officer as if J.O. was ready to fight or
"throw a punch." Officer
Banuelos told J.O. to calm down three or four times and to stop resisting five
times. Eventually, J.O. was handcuffed
and he stopped struggling.
We conclude that because of
counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the
record, J.O. has received adequate and effective appellate review of the
juvenile court's findings and orders entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-279; People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 112–113.) The court's
jurisdictional findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Throughout all of the
proceedings J.O. was represented by competent counsel.
The juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders
are affirmed.
_________________________________
ELIA, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________
RUSHING, P. J.
_____________________________
PREMO, J.
J.O. had been declared a ward of
court back in 2011 when he was found to have committed a residential burglary
(Pen. Code, § 459); and three misdemeanors, aggravated assault (Pen. Code, §
245, subd. (a)), active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, §
186.22, subd. (a)), and resisting or delaying an officer in the performance of
his duty (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)).
The court aggregated the terms
of previously sustained petitions to arrive at this figure.
