Opinion
E066812
01-30-2017
In re A.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.H., Defendant and Appellant.
Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. J266190) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Corey G. Lee, Judge. Affirmed. Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a plea, defendant and appellant A.H. (minor) admitted that he possessed concentrated cannabis, a misdemeanor, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (a). In return, the remaining allegation was dismissed. Following a contested dispositional hearing, minor was declared a ward of the court and placed on formal probation in the custody of his mother on various terms and conditions.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts and summarily raising several issues. We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, here, minor, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.) Based on our independent review of the record, we affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background is taken from the probation officer's report. --------
On February 29, 2016, minor was found with a gallon size Ziploc bag containing nine brownies suspected of being laced with marijuana in his backpack on the school campus. When the brownies were found in his backpack, minor stated to the school security officer, " 'Would you like to buy one? I'm selling them for $5.00.' " Minor admitted that he had baked the brownies and that the brownies contained marijuana. He denied selling them to other students, and said his comment to the school security officer was a joke.
On June 27, 2016, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging that minor possessed marijuana for sale, a felony, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359 (count 1).
On July 18, 2016, the juvenile court granted the People's motion to amend the petition to add count 2, misdemeanor possession of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)). Minor, thereafter, admitted count 2, and count 1 was dismissed. At the time of minor's admission, the juvenile court advised minor of his constitutional rights, as well as the consequences of his admission. Minor stated that he understood his rights and consequences of his admission. After directly examining minor, the court found that minor understood his constitutional rights, the nature of the charges, and the consequences of his admission. The court also found that the admission was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently and that there was a factual basis for his admission. Minor was ordered detained in his mother's home pending the dispositional hearing.
A contested dispositional hearing was held on September 7, 2016. Although minor took responsibility for his actions and had expressed remorse, the probation officer recommended formal probation for minor on various terms and conditions. The probation officer believed that minor had a drug problem and that minor required more structure and supervision to stay in school and off drugs. The probation officer explained that if minor were placed on formal probation, minor would be seen more frequently than he would on summary probation. The probation officer acknowledged that minor's terms and conditions would be the same whether he was placed on formal or summary probation and that summary probation would not preclude the juvenile court from later imposing formal probation. Minor had a prior criminal matter involving burglary which was settled out of court after minor completed a petty theft class. He also had four educational code violations for possession of controlled substances at school. In addition, minor had poor attendance at school with 60 unverified period absences, 41 period suspensions, and 18 truancies.
Minor's trial counsel argued that minor should be placed on summary probation rather than formal probation based on the fact that this was minor's first sustained petition, and it was a misdemeanor case. Counsel pointed out that minor had taken responsibility for his conduct and that placing minor on summary probation with the same conditions as formal probation would not preclude the court from later placing minor on formal probation if necessary. Counsel further asserted minor's schoolwork and attendance had improved. Counsel also noted minor had already enrolled in his drug and alcohol class and started his community service.
The prosecutor argued that the court should follow the probation officer's recommendation, noting minor had been dealing with drug issues for the past four years and that minor required more supervision than summary probation. The prosecutor also pointed out that minor had four prior educational code violations relating to drugs and that minor had been expelled from school. The prosecutor further stated that although minor had slightly improved, minor still had issues with school attendance.
The court found summary probation would not be sufficient for minor and that minor required more services and deterrence. The court believed that minor had drug issues, and found his four drug-related violations and absences at school concerning. As such, the court placed minor on formal probation on various terms and conditions, and referred him to drug court.
III
DISCUSSION
After minor appealed, we appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
Three potential issues are identified by minor's appellate counsel: (1) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering formal probation rather than informal probation, (2) whether minor's admission was voluntary, and (3) whether minor was properly advised of his rights and consequences of his admission.
We review a placement decision only for abuse of discretion, and will indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court. (In re Asean D. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 467, 473.) An appellate court will not lightly substitute its decision for that of the juvenile court and the decision of the court will not be disturbed unless unsupported by substantial evidence. (In re Eugene R. (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 605, 617, overruled on another ground in Nickolas F. v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 92, 115, fn. 20.) The juvenile court may place the minor on formal probation without previous resort to less restrictive placement. (See In re Asean D. at p. 473.) Here, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding minor was in need of supervision on formal probation. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's decision to place minor on formal probation.
The record also shows that minor's admission was voluntary and that minor was properly advised of his rights and the consequences of his admission. Before taking a guilty plea, the trial court must admonish the defendant of both the constitutional rights that are being waived and the direct consequences of the plea. (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242 (Boykin); In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132-133 (Tahl); In re Moser (1993) 6 Cal.4th 342, 351; People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1020; Bunnell v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592, 605.) Juveniles have all the Boykin-Tahl rights that an adult has, except the right to a trial by jury. (In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 315, 321.) Here, the juvenile court directly and properly advised minor of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his admission. And, minor clearly indicated that he understood his rights and consequences.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable issues that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.
IV
DISPOSITION
Our independent review discloses no viable claim of error. We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: MILLER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.