From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re D.B.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division
Feb 14, 2008
No. A118376 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2008)

Opinion


In re D.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.B., Defendant and Appellant. A118376 California Court of Appeal, First District, Second Division February 14, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J9101126

Lambden, J.

Appellant D.B., a juvenile, appeals from a dispositional order entered after his no contest plea in regards to a misdemeanor charge of battery. (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (b).) His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

BACKGROUND

Appellant entered foster care after being abused by his mother’s boyfriend. At age two, although remaining a ward of the court, he was placed with his grandmother. Appellant originally entered the juvenile court system after attempting to rob an ice cream vendor with a BB gun. After the petition was sustained, he was placed at Summit Center on May 28, 2003. While there, he was diagnosed with major depression and oppositional defiant disorder, in addition to being on lifetime disability due to “severe learning disabilities,” likely because of exposure to illegal drugs in utero.

Several months after his placement, appellant left without permission. He was detained a few months later on an outstanding bench warrant. Based on this probation violation, appellant was committed to a six-month program at Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility on December 10, 2003. A month later, appellant was moved to juvenile hall after repeated failures to follow directions, ongoing defiance and threats to probation personnel. On March 10, 2004, appellant was reaccepted into a treatment program at Summit Center. At Summit, appellant was prescribed medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and reported seeing a “major benefit” from the medication, as did others around him.

To further deal with his mental health needs, appellant was placed at the Milhous Treatment Ranch on November 2, 2004, after a “much-awaited” evaluation. While at Milhous, his medication was adjusted, and he received additional educational and learning assessments. In May 2005, appellant was terminated from the program at Milhous after allegedly assaulting a staff member.

Appellant was next briefly placed back at Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility on June 27, 2005. He was moved back to juvenile hall due to probation violations while at Orin Allen. While in juvenile hall, he continued to have problems, culminating in appellant admitting to one count of battery and one count of resisting an executive officer. After this incident, appellant was placed on psychotropic medication, and “his behavior improve[d] dramatically.” At that time, appellant was a special education student in the 12th grade, and on schedule to graduate from high school.

Appellant was next considered for placement at Seneca Center, after a newly ordered neurological examination was completed. Once placed, appellant initially “appear[ed] to be adjusting well” at Seneca. While there, he was diagnosed with “intermittent explosive disorder” and “posttraumatic stress disorder,” and prescribed risperdol (or seroquel) for “explosive, assaultive behaviors.”

On November 30, 2006, appellant allegedly assaulted a Seneca Center staff member, resulting in the hearings that led to this appeal. After the juvenile court judge first confirmed that appellant understood his rights, appellant entered a no contest plea to a charge of misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (b)). After taking into account statements at the dispositional hearing by appellant’s probation officer, his grandmother, and appellant himself, Judge Jill C. Fannin continued appellant’s status as a ward of the court, and committed him to the Division of Juvenile Justice. Appellant then filed this timely appeal.

The opening Wende brief was filed on October 29, 2007. Appellant’s appointed attorney advised him that appellant could personally file a supplemental brief, but no such brief has been received.

Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues.

Accordingly, this judgment is affirmed.

We concur: Kline, P.J., Richman, J.


Summaries of

In re D.B.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division
Feb 14, 2008
No. A118376 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2008)
Case details for

In re D.B.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.B., Defendant and Appellant.

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

Date published: Feb 14, 2008

Citations

No. A118376 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2008)