From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Clarence D.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jan 11, 2012
No. D059663 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2012)

Opinion


In re CLARENCE D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent v. CLARENCE D., Defendant and Appellant, D059663 California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division January 11, 2012

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J224880, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge.

McINTYRE, J.

Seventeen-year-old Clarence D. admitted committing a residential burglary while on probation for an earlier residential burglary and a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; undesignated statutory references are to this code.) At that time, the juvenile court noted that Clarence continued to make bad choices despite his letters to the court stating that he "hate[d] being in custody" and would "do anything to get out and stay out."

Clarence later admitted violating probation by using marijuana, leaving home without permission and being truant from school. After considering a letter written by Clarence, the juvenile court continued Clarence's prior commitment to the Breaking Cycles program for another 90 days.

After successfully completing the Breaking Cycles program, Clarence tested positive for marijuana and again admitted violating his probation by using marijuana on at least three occasions. Clarence stated that he had "a real bad drug addition" and expressed a desire to continue his college classes to obtain an associate's degree. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered Clarence to the Camp Barrett program, finding that he had numerous chances to address his problems and that the court needed to restrict his freedom to keep others safe.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. She presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), she listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether: (1) Clarence violated probation; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in rendering judgment. We granted Clarence permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Clarence on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., BENKE, J.


Summaries of

In re Clarence D.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jan 11, 2012
No. D059663 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2012)
Case details for

In re Clarence D.

Case Details

Full title:In re CLARENCE D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v…

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

Date published: Jan 11, 2012

Citations

No. D059663 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2012)