Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J09-01607
Reardon, Acting P.J.
Counsel for appellant, minor J.W., has filed an opening brief in which she raises no issues, and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
In December 2009, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an original wardship petition alleging that J.W. committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, false imprisonment and robbery, with great bodily injury allegations accompanying each charge. Appellant entered no contest admissions to the assault and false imprisonment allegations; the remaining count and enhancements were dismissed. Thereafter appellant was adjudged a ward of the court and ordered to complete a 90-day program at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (Ranch). The juvenile court also imposed probation conditions and a $200 restitution fine. Finally, the court ordered that appellant could be released early from the Ranch upon good behavior, in order to start the new school year.
The underlying offenses concerned an assault on the live-in boyfriend of appellant’s mother, whom she had been dating for seven years. According to the Richmond police report as set out in the probation report, the boyfriend stated that he and the mother argued, the argument escalated to shoving and slapping, and her punch to the face dazed him. Appellant and his sister joined in, punching and kicking the boyfriend in the face, back and stomach, 15-20 times. The boyfriend was in and out of consciousness. His wrists and ankles were bound, and one of the family members removed his wallet, which contained $50. When the boyfriend moved himself into the hallway, the family members hit and kicked him again, five times. Eventually he freed himself and went to a friend’s house. After talking with the police, he was transported to a hospital.
The boyfriend had a criminal record with various arrests, and had been sentenced to probation for driving under the influence and resisting arrest. As well, the probation officer recently completed a child abuse report for physical abuse by the boyfriend as reported by appellant.
Appellant’s father, a heroin addict, also had an extensive criminal record; he died of a gunshot wound. Appellant’s mother and sister were on felony probation for their role in the instant offense.
Appellant denied involvement with the beating, stating he just held the boyfriend down while his sister tied him up. Appellant reported that the boyfriend was drunk and “completely out of control.” He was upset with his mother for putting him in the present situation because of her poor decision to live with the man. According to appellant, the boyfriend was homeless when his mother began dating him, and upon moving in he became verbally and physically abusive toward the family. Said appellant: He was a “ ‘very mean, aggressive and crazy drunk.’ ”
Appellant had no prior sustained juvenile petitions. The probation department recommended wardship and probation with conditions under the supervision of his mother. Rejecting this proposal, the juvenile court explained: “[T]here should be separation between the minor and his family where he can be counseled by people on a daily basis about how violence is not the answer. And even when someone you love tells you to do it, it is not the answer. [¶] The minor is 17-years-old. We only have one year, maybe less, to work with him to get him on a different track to give him some intensive counseling, and that is the goal of this Court for the benefit of the minor that he receives some very intensive counseling away from the family.”
We have conducted the requested Wende review and conclude there are no arguable issues. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The juvenile court properly advised appellant of his constitutional rights, and appellant voluntarily waived each of them. As well, the court advised appellant of the consequences of his admissions. His admissions were validly entered and the court properly found that there was a factual basis for the plea. The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a 90-day Ranch program instead of probation.
The dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: Sepulveda, J., Rivera, J.