STATEMENT OF FACTS

On the afternoon of December 27, 2011, a maintenance worker at an apartment

complex observed the Minor "doing" graffiti on the sidewalk. The worker testified the

Minor was alone, wearing a sweatshirt, a cap and a backpack. The Minor was bent over

with a can in his right hand.

The worker confronted the Minor, who then ran away into the back of the

complex. The worker approached the sidewalk where the Minor had been located and

observed fresh graffiti. He then reported the incident to the property manager.

About five minutes later a black Ford Ranger truck pulled up to the property. The

Minor emerged from the property, got into the truck and it drove away. The manager

called police.

Police located the truck and then brought the worker to the location where the

truck was stopped. The worker viewed the driver and the passenger from the truck and

identified the Minor as the person who "did" the graffiti.

The defense presented two witnesses who testified they were with the Minor that

day at the complex. They said they were there to meet some girls and that the Minor was

2 always in their presence. The Minor also testified and denied placing the graffiti on the

sidewalk.

DISCUSSION

As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is

unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for

error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S.

738, the brief identifies possible, but not arguable issues:

1. Whether the juvenile court erred in admitting evidence of the Minor's prior act

of putting up graffiti in the bedroom of his residence;

2. Whether Minor's counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to seek to suppress the

eyewitness identification as unduly suggestive; (b) failing to object to the eyewitness

identification as the product of an unlawful seizure; (c) failure to object to the eyewitness

identification as the product of an unlawful arrest; and (d) failing to move for dismissal of

the case following the completion of the prosecution's case-in-chief (Welf. & Inst. Code,

§ 701.1).

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25

Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable

appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal.

3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

IRION, J.

4