In re S.S. CA4/3

Filed 7/26/22 In re S.S. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 8.1 115(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

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

THE PEOPLE, G060612 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20DL0220) v. OPI NION S.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Katherine E. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Erica Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

FACTS In July of 2021, after a contested jurisdictional hearing, Superior Court Judge Katherine Lewis found it to be true that appellant S.S. (a juvenile) had violated Penal Code section 211 (robbery). Specifically, the court found that appellant and another man accosted the victim, pulled his bag from his shoulder, jumped into a blue van, and fled. The victim testified he stopped struggling and allowed appellant to take the bag because he was afraid. The victim of the robbery was “100 percent sure” of his identification of appellant, even though he thought the robber was about the same height he was, and appellant is roughly six inches taller. Defense called an eyewitness identification expert who testified about the unreliability of identifications in circumstances such as those presented in this case. Nonetheless, the trial judge was convinced and found the petition true. DISCUSSION S.S. filed an appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him on that appeal. Counsel, an able and experienced criminal lawyer, filed a brief which fully set forth the facts of the case. Her conscientious and very helpful description of the facts of the case assisted this court in its search for possible issues. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. Appellant was invited to express his own objections to the proceedings against him but did not. Under the law, this put the onus on us to review the record and see if we could find any issues that might result in some kind of amelioration of appellant’s lot. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) It should be emphasized that our search was not for issues upon which appellant would prevail, but only issues upon which he might possibly prevail. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. This is not surprising. In fact, it is what we find in the vast majority of cases in which appellate