From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Sandy B.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Aug 28, 2007
No. A116408 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2007)

Opinion


In re SANDY B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDY B., Defendant and Appellant. A116408 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division August 28, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Solano County Super. Ct. No. J35525

RIVERA, J.

Sandy B. appeals from an order continuing him a ward of the court and committing him to the Fouts Springs Youth Facility. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

On April 29, 2005, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (section 602) petition was filed against defendant alleging that he stole a car (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and that he received stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). Defendant admitted the car theft. The court deemed the offense a felony and imposed a maximum term of confinement of three years and placed defendant on deferred entry of judgment.

A first amended section 602 petition was filed on June 30, 2006, alleging that defendant committed second degree robbery. On July 3, 2006, the court revoked the deferred entry of judgment and ordered defendant into wardship, placing him in the temporary custody of his probation officer. On July 20, 2006, the court authorized defendant’s release from juvenile hall and continued the matter.

A second amended section 602 petition was filed on August 21, 2006, alleging four felonies and two misdemeanors including possession of a deadly weapon and second degree burglary. A third amended section 602 petition was filed on August 22, 2006, alleging that defendant provided false information to a police officer and that he disobeyed a court order. A fourth amended petition was filed on October 23, 2006, alleging that defendant resisted arrest. Finally, a fifth amended section 602 petition was filed on November 28, 2006, alleging two counts of second degree robbery.

On December 7, 2006, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the court granted the district attorney’s motion to amend the petition to add a grand theft charge in lieu of the second degree robbery charge in the first amended petition. Defendant admitted the grand theft charge as well as the allegations that he resisted arrest and that he committed a robbery. The remaining counts of the petition were dismissed subject to comment and restitution.

A contested disposition hearing was held on January 4, 2007. Defendant’s stepmother testified she could provide a safe living environment for defendant. On cross-examination, she admitted telling defendant’s probation officer that she had done all she could, and that defendant was not listening to her or his father. Robin S., the mother of the victim of defendant’s grand theft offense, testified that her son was traumatized by the incident and had moved to Portland, Oregon because he was afraid of defendant and of living in Vallejo. Alan Cole, defendant’s probation officer, testified that defendant denied the offenses and showed no insight into his involvement with the incidents with which he was charged. Cole stated that the probation department recommended defendant be committed to the Fouts Springs Youth Facility program because he needed a higher level of intervention. Since defendant was over 17 years old, Cole testified that the department believed this commitment would be a last attempt to have an impact and positive change on him before the juvenile court lost jurisdiction.

The court agreed with the probation department, continued defendant as a ward of the court and committed him to the Fouts Springs Youth Facility for a maximum term of confinement of six years and four months. The court granted defendant custody credits of 76 days.

Defendant was represented by counsel throughout these proceedings. There was no error in the disposition. The court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.

DISPOSITION

The dispositional order is affirmed.

We concur: RUVOLO, P.J., SEPULVEDA, J.


Summaries of

In re Sandy B.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Aug 28, 2007
No. A116408 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2007)
Case details for

In re Sandy B.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDY B., Defendant and Appellant.

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

Date published: Aug 28, 2007

Citations

No. A116408 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2007)