1

Filed 4/15/15 In re Sean S. CA1/4 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 FOUR 

In re SEAN S., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

SEAN S., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 A138644 

 (Contra Costa County 

 Super. Ct. No. J13-00366) 

 Sean S. appeals from an order adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court and 

committing him to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) for a 12-month 

program, plus an additional 90-day conditional release/parole period, together with 

standard conditions of probation. His counsel has asked this court for an independent 

review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After review of the record, we find no error and find 

sufficient evidence to sustain the juvenile court’s findings and, accordingly, affirm. 

 A juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 602 was filed, alleging that the minor committed second degree felony robbery 

(Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c).) At the contested jurisdictional hearing, evidence 

was adduced that the minor, along with several other individuals, robbed the victim as he 

was walking home after work. Detective Robert Meads testified that he gave the minor 
2

the standard Miranda1

 admonishments. The minor acknowledged that he understood his 

rights. The minor then began speaking with the officer. The juvenile court found that 

there was an implied Miranda waiver and allowed the officer to testify as to the minor’s 

statements. The officer testified that the minor admitted to driving a car, in which three 

of his friends were passengers. The minor admitted to stopping the car at the request of 

one his friends, but denied having any knowledge that a robbery had occurred. 

 Based on the testimony of the victim, the court found that each juvenile was a 

principal in the robbery. Accordingly, the court sustained the petition and, following the 

recommendations of the probation department, committed the minor to the OAYRF. 

This appeal followed. 

 The minor was represented by counsel and received a fair hearing. First, the court 

properly found an implied Miranda waiver. Second, substantial evidence supports the 

juvenile court’s finding sustaining the allegation that the minor committed a violation of 

Penal Code sections 211 and 212.5, subdivision (c). There was no error in the 

disposition. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal. 

 The order declaring the minor to a ward of the court and committing him the 

OAYRF is affirmed. 

 

1

 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. 
3

 _________________________ 

 Reardon, J. 

We concur: 

_________________________ 

Ruvolo, P. J. 

_________________________ 

Rivera, J.