In re Anthony L. CA5

Filed 8/21/14 In re Anthony L. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re ANTHONY L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F068152

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Fresno Super. Ct. No. 12CEJ600481-2) v.

ANTHONY L., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Judge. Karriem Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION A juvenile petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, in the Superior Court of Fresno County alleging appellant Anthony L., a minor, committed count I, second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b))1 and count II, receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). Appellant denied the allegations and requested a contested hearing. The court found the allegations true, adjudged appellant a ward of the court, and placed him on supervised probation subject to certain terms and conditions. The court also ordered appellant to complete 100 hours of community service, a three-page essay about character, and property-offender counseling. He was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, with $100 stayed pursuant to section 654. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citation to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm. FACTS On the morning of June 3, 2013, Mark Miranda (Miranda) was painting the inside of an apartment. Sometime between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., he heard someone knock on the apartment door. Miranda opened the door and encountered a young man, about 16 to 17 years old with a piercing on his lower lip. Miranda later identified appellant as this person. Appellant said he was looking for someone but realized that person no longer lived in the apartment. Appellant jokingly asked if he could come in. Miranda said he was busy and appellant left. Miranda closed the apartment’s front door, but he forgot to lock it. He left his Samsung Android cell phone on the kitchen counter he used with a Bluetooth ear piece. He resumed painting the back room of the apartment.