In re Austyn H. CA4/1
Filed 7/7/22 In re Austyn H. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re AUSTYN H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D079757 THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM241567)
v.
AUSTYN H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ana Espana and Kathleen Lewis, Judges. Affirmed. Lisa A. Kopelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A wardship petition was filed in the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging Austyn H. (the Minor) committed a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). An adjudication hearing was held and the court made a true finding on the petition.
At the disposition hearing, the court declared the Minor to be a ward of the court and committed him to the San Diego County Probation Healing Opportunities for Personal Empowerment program for a period not to exceed 480 days. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Counsel has submitted an accurate summary of the facts of the offense.
We will incorporate that statement here for convenience.1 On September 29, 2021, Brandon H. was working as a cashier at the Ocean Beach CVS Store. At approximately 10:15 p.m. he was cleaning and preparing to close the store when he and a coworker noticed someone standing outside the store looking inside and repeatedly setting off the automatic door without entering the store. Brandon was attentive to this because they frequently have shoplifters at the store. The store is close to the beach and at times there are homeless people that come to the store and loiter. This is why he and his coworker spoke about keeping an eye out. He saw an individual “hanging out and looking inside a bunch” for about a half hour. He couldn’t hear anything and didn’t see him make any hand gestures. He couldn’t see whether the person
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)