Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Super. Ct. No. 07CEJ600171-1. Martin Suits, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.).
Catherine Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., Cornell, J.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Appellant, Andre S., was charged in a petition filed on February 1, 2007 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, with one felony count of a lewd and lascivious act on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). On March 20, 2007, Andre was advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea. Andre admitted a violation of misdemeanor statutory rape (§ 261.5, subd. (c)). The court found, without an objection, a factual basis for the plea.
Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The probation officer’s report stated that an officer was dispatched to a residential disturbance on October 25, 2006. Andre’s mother told the officer she had an argument with Andre’s girlfriend who was truant from school and spending time at Andre’s residence. The girlfriend indicated she was having sex with Andre. Andre’s mother had the girlfriend take a home pregnancy test which showed a positive result. This caused another argument. The girlfriend admitted to having “consensual” sex with Andre twice in September 2006. Andre admitted to the officer that he had sex with the girlfriend, who was 13 years old at that time. Andre was over 17 years old.
The probation officer recommended probation with electronic monitoring, a community service work program, community service, and family counseling. The court placed Andre on probation upon various terms and conditions including a curfew, that Andre not associate with children under age 14 except in the presence of an adult, no consumption of alcohol, submitting to drug and alcohol testing, and enrollment into a sexual awareness class. After initially ordering Andre to complete a term of 90 days at the Juvenile Justice Campus, the court reduced Andre’s commitment to 60 days.
Andre’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Andre was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on July 19, 2007, we invited Andre to submit additional briefing. To date he has not done so.
DISCUSSION
Andre was fully advised of the consequences of his plea and his constitutional rights. Andre was advised he could receive up to a year in juvenile hall and was committed to the Juvenile Justice Campus for only 60 days. The court found a factual basis for Andre’s admission without objection from either party. Andre was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and his mother was present at the disposition hearing. The terms and conditions of probation appear to be reasonably related to his rehabilitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, subd. (b); In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1033 [conditions of probation impermissible for adult probationer may be imposed in rehabilitation of minors].)
The factual account of events in the probation report was based on a police report.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.