In re Paul R.
Filed 5/1/13 In re Paul R. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
In re PAUL R., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
PAUL R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062846
(Super. Ct.
No. J231-421)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Carolyn M. Caietti and Browder Willis,
Judges. Affirmed.
Following a
contested adjudication hearing, the juvenile
court found true an allegation that Paul R. (the Minor) committed vandalism
by defacing property with graffiti causing damage of less than $400, a
misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivisions (a) and
(b)(2)(A).
The Minor
was declared a ward of the court and granted probation, subject to certain
conditions. The Minor was placed with
his parents.
Counsel for
the Minor has filed a brief pursuant to
Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising
possible, but not arguable issues. We
offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has
not responded.
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
On the
afternoon of December 27, 2011,
a maintenance worker at an apartment complex observed the Minor
"doing" graffiti on the sidewalk.
The worker testified the Minor was alone, wearing a sweatshirt, a cap
and a backpack. The Minor was bent over
with a can in his right hand.
The worker
confronted the Minor, who then ran away into the back of the complex. The worker approached the sidewalk where the
Minor had been located and observed fresh graffiti. He then reported the incident to the property
manager.
About five
minutes later a black Ford Ranger truck pulled up to the property. The Minor emerged from the property, got into
the truck and it drove away. The manager
called police.
Police
located the truck and then brought the worker to the location where the truck
was stopped. The worker viewed the
driver and the passenger from the truck and identified the Minor as the person
who "did" the graffiti.
The defense
presented two witnesses who testified they were with the Minor that day at the
complex. They said they were there to
meet some girls and that the Minor was always in their presence. The Minor also testified and denied placing
the graffiti on the sidewalk.
DISCUSSION
As we have
previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable
to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record
for error as mandated by Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to
738, the brief identifies possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Whether the juvenile court erred in admitting
evidence of the Minor's prior act of putting up graffiti in the bedroom of his
residence;
2. Whether Minor's counsel was ineffective for
(a) failing to seek to suppress the eyewitness identification as unduly
suggestive; (b) failing to object to the eyewitness identification as the
product of an unlawful seizure; (c) failure to object to the eyewitness
identification as the product of an unlawful arrest; and (d) failing to move
for dismissal of the case following the completion of the prosecution's
case-in-chief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 701.1).
We have
reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S.
738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented the Minor
on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON,
J.
IRION,
J.
