Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV31671
OPINION
Bamattre-Manoukian, ACTING P.J.
On June 19, 2006, a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed alleging that the minor, Andre L., then age 15, committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (a)). The petition was dismissed without prejudice on August 15, 2006, after the minor paid restitution to the victim.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
On February 27, 2007, a section 602 petition was filed alleging that the minor possessed a controlled substance, 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, also known as MDMA (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1, a felony), possessed 28.5 grams of marijuana or less (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b); count 4, a misdemeanor), and twice obstructed a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); counts 2 & 3, both misdemeanors). On April 19, 2007, another section 602 petition was filed alleging that the minor possessed for sale cocaine base and marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351.5, 11359; counts 1 & 2, both felonies), possessed 28.5 grams of marijuana or less (count 4, a misdemeanor), and committed misdemeanor battery (count 3). On May 25, 2007, the minor admitted the allegations as to counts 1 and 2 of both petitions, and the juvenile court dismissed the remaining allegations and continued the matter for a contested disposition hearing.
The probation officer recommended that the minor be committed to the Santa Clara County Juvenile Rehabilitation Facilities’ enhanced ranch program for six to eight months, then returned to the custody of his mother on probation. The probation officer determined that the minor was an unsuitable candidate for the Alternative Placement Academy due to his history of defiant behavior toward school staff and authority. In addition, the minor was determined to be ineligible for a residential drug treatment program due to his history of drug sales.
The contested disposition hearing was held on May 30, 2007. The minor’s mother testified that both she and the minor’s father were incarcerated in 2006, and the minor was under the care of his aunt. After mother was released from custody she discovered that the minor’s behavior had changed: he was not attending school; he was being disrespectful toward teachers, police officers, and other adults; and he was selling drugs. She has visited him in juvenile hall and they write letters to each other. His teacher has told her that the minor is now doing well in his classes. If the court were to release the minor to her, she would get him into counseling and attend rehabilitation with him.
The minor’s counsel requested that the court release the minor to his mother’s custody with services, as the offenses the minor admitted occurred while his mother was in custody. “I know the Department of Alcohol and Drugs can’t make any recommendations like probation. But they have made an assessment. They have talked to the minor, and it’s their suggestion that he do an intensive outpatient program. And with his mother’s guidance and stability that he’ll have at home now, this is a good opportunity for him to help himself and do well out in the community.” The prosecutor argued that, because the minor was a drug dealer, he should not be placed in a program with drug users. “I think this young man desperately needs to be in a structured environment like the ranch. It’s basically our last chance to prevent him from, like his father, going to the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.”
The court stated that it was “concerned about the drug issues, but that’s less of a concern to me than the violence. . . . Whether we send him to the ranch or put him back into the community, he’s going to get drug treatment.” “I’ve listened to everything. I think this is a closer case than some I have considered. But I am concerned about the levels of violence along with the hiding the rock of cocaine . . . . And the fact that he’s just not doing drugs, he’s hiding drugs. The levels of violence are of concern, so I am going to adopt the recommendation and send him to the ranch.” “And, you know, I do appreciate all of the comments I’ve heard today. I do appreciate your concern, Ma’am. I, just at this point, think that if it were just a drug case, I would send him to a treatment program. But I think the drug case combined with the level of violence that I have here and the assaults on officers, which shows a fearless attitude, and the hiding of cocaine all mitigate in favor of a ranch commitment. So I am going to adopt the recommendations.” The court’s disposition order set the maximum time of confinement as six years eight months, and awarded the minor 50 days custody credits.
The minor filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and facts but raises no issues. We notified the minor of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no response from the minor. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The dispositional order of May 30, 2007, is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MIHARA, J., MCADAMS, J.