Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV32600
ELIA, J.The Santa Clara County Juvenile Court sustained two petitions pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. (Hereafter, 602 petition) In the first 602 petition, filed on February 22, 2007, the minor was charged in count one with theft or unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), a felony); in count two with attempted theft or unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 664, Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); in count three with vandalism less than $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a) & (b)(2)(A)); in count four with public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)); and in count five with petty theft of personal property (Pen. Code, §§ 484 & 488). The second 602 petition, filed on March 20, 2007, charged the minor in counts one and two with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211-212.5, subd. (c)); in counts three and four and five with attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211-212.5, subd. (c)); in count six with resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)); in count seven with second degree burglary, a felony (Pen. Code, §§ 459-460, subd. (b)); and in count eight with purchasing, receiving, or possessing tobacco or paraphernalia (Pen. Code, § 308, subd. (b)).
On May 10, 2007, the minor admitted all counts in the first petition and counts three through eight in the second petition. The court dismissed counts one and two contained in the second petition. On May 17, 2007, the court imposed probation and placed the minor in the ranch program.
On October 5, 2007, the Santa Clara County probation department filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, alleging, as amended, that the minor violated his probation by leaving a ranch program. The court transferred the matter to Monterey County on March 11, 2007. Thereafter, on December 5, 2007, the Monterey County Juvenile Court continued the minor's probation and placed him with his mother. Again, the minor violated his probation. Accordingly, he was placed in a juvenile detention facility.
It appears that the minor's mother was living in Soledad. Accordingly, the probation department recommended that the matter be transferred to Monterey County for a disposition hearing.
Subsequently, on September 16, 2008, the Monterey County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that the minor escaped from the juvenile facility (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 871, subd. (a)). In addition, the petition alleged that the minor violated his probation. On September 30, 2008, the minor admitted the allegations in the petition and the matter was returned to Santa Clara County.
On October 9, 2008, the Santa Clara County Juvenile Court accepted the transfer in, but then immediately transferred the case back to Monterey County again for a disposition hearing. Thereafter, on October 20, 2008, the Monterey County Juvenile Court released the minor to the custody of his stepfather in Morgan Hill and transferred to matter back to Santa Clara County.
Finally, the minor became homeless. On January 8, 2009, the Santa Clara County Juvenile Court held a disposition hearing and committed the minor to juvenile hall for 120 days and ordered him to participate in the life skills program. Probation was to terminate upon the completion of the term on May 6, 2009.
The minor filed a notice of appeal on October 9, 2008. This court issued an order deeming the notice of appeal filed as of the day of the disposition hearing held on January 8, 2009.
The minor filed a notice of appeal after the hearing held October 9, 2008, during which the Santa Clara County Juvenile Court transferred the matter to Monterey County.
Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) requesting that this court review independently the entire appellate record. On March 26, 2009, we notified the minor that appointed counsel had not found any arguable issues, and that he had 30 days within which to submit any argument he wanted to make to this court to consider. To date we have not received a response from the minor. Having concluded our review, we affirm the jurisdiction and disposition orders.
The facts are taken from the probation report prepared for the May 17, 2007 hearing.
With respect to the first 602 petition, the minor was stopped while driving a car that did not belong to him, on another occasion he was seen looking through cars. When questioned by the Morgan Hill police, the minor was found to be in possession of a flashlight, a screwdriver and $14.74, which the minor admitted he took from the car. The Live Oak School Resource Officer received a report of a student writing on a bus bench. The officer recognized the minor as that student and as the officer approached the minor, the minor threw away an object, which later was identified as a blue ballpoint pen. The officer observed a freshly written symbol associated with a local Morgan Hill gang. The minor admitted writing on the bench and said he tried to erase it. The next day the minor was stopped while walking through an apartment complex. Following a search, the minor was found to be in possession of a four-inch blade folding knife and cigarettes. The minor had what was later determined to be a blood alcohol level of 0.092. On another occasion, Morgan Hill police officers stopped two juveniles matching the description of two individuals that had stolen beer from the 7-11 store on West Main Avenue. Upon questioning, the minor admitted to stealing the beer.
With respect to the second 602 petition, the minor and another juvenile demanded property from various victims. They displayed gang signs and colors during the incident. When the police responded on a report of the incident, they noticed the minor at a train station. He matched the description of one of the assailants. The minor tried to walk away, but was apprehended. On a separate occasion, the minor took a bottle of Cognac from the Quick Stop store. On yet another occasion, the minor was found to be in possession of a cigarette lighter.
After this matter was transferred to Monterey County, the probation department there reported that the minor's mother and stepfather were no longer living together in Morgan Hill. The minor's mother had moved to Soledad. During the time that the minor was placed with his mother, he left Monterey County and went to stay with his stepfather in Morgan Hill. In addition, the minor ran away from the Monterey County Youth Center. It was after the minor admitted these probation violations that the case was transferred to Santa Clara County.
The Santa Clara County Probation Department reported that the minor's mother and stepfather had divorced, that the stepfather did not have legal custody of the minor, and the minor's mother continued to live in Soledad. The minor opposed transferring the case back to Monterey County. He argued that he was 18 years old and could choose where he wished to live; his mother was not a part of his life, but his stepfather was; he lived in Santa Clara County, so it was in his best interest to keep the case in the county.
Once the case returned to Monterey County, the probation department there reported that the minor had not seen his mother in two years and he viewed his stepfather as his parental figure. This is when the matter was transferred back to Santa Clara County.
As noted, we have examined the entire record and determined there are no arguable issues on appeal. Accordingly, we are satisfied that defendant's appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
As noted, the minor filed a notice of appeal after the Santa Clara County Juvenile Court transferred the matter back to Monterey County on October 9, 2008. Appellate counsel suggests that the Santa Clara County Juvenile Court might have abused its discretion in so doing, but that the error was corrected when the Santa Clara County Juvenile Court eventually issued the disposition order. Having reviewed the record, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in so doing. (Compare In re R. D. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 679, 687-688 [California Rules of Court, rule 5.610 governing transfer-out proceedings provides the minor's residence is with the person entitled to legal custody].) However, we remind the juvenile courts that a "transfer-out hearing must be separate from the transfer-in hearing, because the court is charged with the duty to determine the residency of the [minor] and whether the transfer is in the [minor]'s best interest." [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 685.)
Disposition
The jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RUSHING, P. J., PREMO, J.