Filed 6/24/14 In re Luke B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LUKE B. , Minor and Appellant. G049 439 (Super. Ct. No. DL038494 )

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory
W. Jones , Judge. Affirmed.

Marta I. Stanton , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * We appointed counsel to represent Luke B. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief
that se t forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against h er client but advised2

the court she found no issues to argue on h is behalf. Luke was given 30 days to file written argument on h is own behalf. That time has pa ssed, and he did not file a brief.

Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v . Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independen t review of the entire record. When the appellant himself r aises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opin ion and explain why they fail. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Luke did not file a supplemental brief raising any
issues.
P ursuant to A nders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , counsel pr ovided the
court with information as to one issue that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel questioned whether the record supports the juvenile court’s finding Luke committed a
violat ion of Penal Cod e section 211. W e have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders , and found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.
PROCEDU RAL HISTORY

Luke had allegations on numerous previous petitions sustained. The sustained allegation s from the first three petitions are: one count of sale or transportation of marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a), a felony, and one count of sal e or transportation of E cstasy in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivisi o n (a), a felony (Petition One); on e count of public
intoxication in violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f) , a misdemeanor (Petition Two); and one count of petty theft in viola tion of Penal C ode sections 484 and 488, a misdemeanor, one count of false representat ion to a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 148.9, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor, and one count of po ssession of alcohol by a minor in violation of Business and Professio ns Code section 25662,3

subdivision (a), a misdemeanor (Petition Three ). Sustained allegations f rom the next two petitions are: one count of possession of a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a) (1), a felony (Petition Fou r); one count of second degree commercial burglary (Albertsons) in viol ation of Penal Code section 459 and 460 , subdivision (b) , a misdemeanor; and one count of possession of an alcoholic beverage by
a minor in violation of Business and Professions Code se ction 25662, subdivision (a) , a misdemeanor (Petition Five); t here were no sustained allegations on Petitions Six through
Nine. Allegations of one count of resisting a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 148, sub division (a)(1), a misdemeanor , and one count of minor in possession of tobacco in violation of Penal Code section 308 , subdivision (b), a misdemeanor, were sustained in Petition 10

.

On November 13, 2013, the 11th Petition was filed, alleging one count of second degree robbery (Walmart), in violation of Pe nal Code section s 211 and 212.5, subdivision (c) , a felony, and one count of second degree burglary (Walmart) in violation
of Penal Code sections 459 and 460, subdivision (b), a felony. At the adjudication hearing on December 5 and 6, 2013, the juvenile court fou nd count one of Petition 11 to be true, and dismissed count two b ased on insufficient evidence. The court declared
Luke a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The
court committed Lu ke to juvenile hall for 180 days with credits for 23 days and to serve the balance in the ASERT Program. T he court ordered Luke may not be held in physical
confinement for a period to exceed five years. Luke filed a timely notice of appeal

. FACTS
On Nov ember 8, 2013, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Jose Luis Olvera and
Briana Stine

- Ramos, loss prevention officers for Walmart, were working asset protec tion
at the Walmart in Irvine. While watching surveillance, Olvera and Ramos saw Luke concealing merchandise , including a Coleman fire starter from the Sporting Goods Department, in his front , left pocket an d waistband. Luke was observed to walk out of4

the store without attempting to pay for the merchandise. After Luke left the store, Olvera and his partner St ine

- Ramos approached Luke and identified themselves as Walm art security. Olvera asked Luke to return the merchandise Lu ke concealed in his waistband. At first Luke denied having any merchandise, and then he threw an item on the floor, pushed Olvera, push ed Stine

- Ramos, and fle d. The item Luke threw was packaging for a
fire starter. The surveillance video of the inci dent was played for the court.

Olvera called the police. Irvine Police Officer Bradley Boyer responded to a petty theft or robbery at the Walmart

. When he firs t arrived, Boyer headed to the loss
p reven tion office but was advised another officer had detained a subjec t possibly matching the suspect’s description. After conferring with Officer Nick Kim , who had detained Luke, Boyer went to sp eak with the Walmart loss p revention officers

. Olvera
later identified Luke at an in

- field identification. At the in

- field identification, the police
returned the Coleman fire starter an d a camping knife to Olvera.

After having been advised of his Miranda 1 rights, Luke told Boyer he went into the store with his friend, saw items he wanted which were a fire starter and camping knife, he placed the fire starter in his front, left pocket, and the knife in his waistband, he walked past the registers wit hout p aying, and employees confronted him

. Luke told Boyer that he retu rned the fire starter and ran. Luke threw the fire starter and packaging on the ground when the security e mployees first confronted him. Luke denied touching
Olvera and Stines

- Ramos but told Boyer that h e “probably shoved past them.” Luke tried to get on a bus and was confronted by an unknown man, Luke gave the m an the knife, and he ran away. Luke told Boyer that he was then detained by a police officer. The
knife was recovered at the scene where Luke was detained by Kim. Boyer returned the knife to the Walmart employees who identified it as Walmart property.

1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.5 DISCUSSION
The fact counsel filed the opening brief under Wende confirms s he does not
believe the issues s he listed are ar guable. When specific issues are raised by the appellant himself in a Wende brief, we must expressly addres s those issues in our opinion. ( Kell

y, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 110, 120, 124.) In this case, Luke did not file a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations
under Wende and Anders and considered the issues listed by counsel . W e find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed

O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

FYBEL J.

THOMPSON, J.