In re William M. CA1/3

Filed 1/14/16 In re William M. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re WILLIAM M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A145191 v. (Solano County WILLIAM M., Super. Ct. No. J40937) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant William M. appeals orders of the juvenile court continuing him as a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), removing him from parental custody, and placing him in a residential treatment facility, with standard probation conditions. William’s appointed appellate counsel initially filed an opening brief which summarized the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Thereafter, this court requested additional briefing on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s finding that William had committed a robbery. Having considered supplemental briefing by both William’s appointed counsel and the Attorney General, we find no error in the record and therefore shall affirm the orders.

1

Factual and Procedural History On January 8, 2015, the Solano County District Attorney’s Office filed a juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), charging William with a violation of Penal Code section 211, second degree robbery. The following evidence was presented at the jurisdictional hearing: On January 6, 2015, at around 11:00 p.m., the 19-year-old victim was walking home when a black SUV with a cracked windshield pulled up next to her. There were three males in the car, two in the front seats and one in the back. William, who was driving the car, asked if they could use the victim’s cell phone because their car had broken down. The victim entered the password to her phone and passed it to the front passenger. When the front passenger grabbed the phone from the victim, the passenger in the back seat pulled out a silver gun and pointed it at her. The car then instantly drove off, “like they had planned it.” The victim used a friends’ phone to call 911. The victim identified William as the driver of the car after he was arrested and again at the hearing. A recently deleted file on her phone contained videos of the three people who took her phone with the firearm that had been used in the robbery, including footage inside an SUV with a cracked windshield. During closing arguments, trial counsel argued that the facts of the case did not support a robbery conviction, but rather demonstrated a completed theft followed by brandishing of a weapon. The court rejected defense counsel’s argument and sustained the petition. The minor was continued as a ward of the court and placed at a residential treatment facility. As terms of probation the court ordered that William not possess any deadly or dangerous weapons, ammunitions or firearms and that he be subject to a search clause. William timely filed a notice of appeal. Discussion “Robbery is defined as ‘the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.’ [Citation.] Robbery is larceny with the aggravating circumstances that ‘the property is taken from the person or presence of another . . .’ and ‘is