From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re J.H.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Sep 18, 2008
No. A121260 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2008)

Opinion


In re J.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.H., Defendant and Appellant. A121260 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division September 18, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J05-01699

Ruvolo, P. J.

Appellant J.H. (appellant) appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues are being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead is being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.

A petition was filed on October 4, 2005, seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 600 et seq.), and alleged one count of petty theft robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 488), one count of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) All crimes allegedly occurred in July 2005. Appellant was ordered to home supervision pending the next hearing.

A report from the probation department was filed on November 15, 2005, alleging that appellant had violated the court’s previous order by testing positive for marijuana and methamphetamine. Additional violation reports were filed later that same year indicating that appellant was out of range of his ankle monitor without authorization, failed to appear for drug tests, and tested positive again for marijuana.

At his arraignment held on December 19, 2005, appellant admitted to having taken a motor vehicle unlawfully. At a dispositional hearing held on January 30, 2006, he was placed on home supervision with conditions. The rest of the counts of the petition were dismissed.

A supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) was filed on September 5, 2006, alleging that appellant had committed second degree robbery (with an arming enhancement alleged (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c)), and assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant admitted the truth of the robbery allegation, and the arming enhancement and the assault allegations were dismissed. At a dispositional hearing held on November 29, 2006, appellant was ordered into the nine-month regular program at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) (the Ranch), the maximum custody time was set at three years four months, and other conditions of probation were imposed.

A probation report was filed on September 24, 2007, following appellant’s release from the Ranch recommending termination of his parole status, but that appellant remain a ward of the court, based on his positive adjustment in the community. The recommendation was followed at a subsequent hearing, and appellant was discharged from parole status on that same date.

Supplemental petitions alleging two separate probation violations were filed during November 2007, and a second supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) was filed on March 7, 2008, alleging that appellant had committed an attempted residential first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, 460, subd. (a), 664), on March 5. At a hearing held on March 18, the prosecution added a misdemeanor count of second degree burglary, to which appellant pleaded no contest, in return for which the felony count alleged in the second supplemental petition was dismissed. Appellant was advised of the constitutional rights he was waiving by entering the no-contest plea, and of the potential consequences of his plea. Appellant entered a plea of no contest after he waived his rights, and acknowledged being aware of the penal consequences of his plea. Disposition was set for April 2.

All further date references are to the calendar year 2008, unless otherwise indicated.

Prior to the dispositional hearing, the probation department filed a report recommending that appellant remain a ward of the court, that he be removed from the custody of his parents or guardian, and that he be returned to the Ranch for another nine-month regular program. Recommended conditions of probation were also enumerated in the report.

At the dispositional hearing, appellant’s counsel disagreed with the recommendations, noting that appellant had already completed “essentially a perfect program” at the Ranch, and that he had received counseling and did “extremely well.” Counsel also noted that the plea was to a misdemeanor, and that monitoring while he went to school was sufficient supervision. It was noted that the probation department felt that appellant’s grandfather, who was appellant’s guardian, was not cooperative, and that the grandfather indicated a willingness to cooperate in the future.

In support of the recommendations, the probation officer assigned to the case stated that her recommendations were not related to the difficulties she had with appellant’s grandfather, but because appellant tested positive for drugs soon after he was released from parole after his first stint at the Ranch. Also, appellant was not in contact with the probation department for a period of four months around this same timeframe. After the matter was submitted, the juvenile court committed appellant to a nine-month regular program at the Ranch to be followed by a 90-day conditional release/parole period. Other conditions of probation were imposed, including that appellant not associate with six individuals indentified by name at the hearing, that he have no contact with the victim of the burglary attempt, and that he stay 100 yards away from the residence in question.

We have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that the plea entered by appellant was knowingly and voluntarily made, and was supported by the evidence. There was no error in the disposition, as it was fully supported factually, and was chosen by the trial judge in accordance with applicable juvenile law principles. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and we have concluded there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: Reardon, J., Rivera, J.


Summaries of

In re J.H.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Sep 18, 2008
No. A121260 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2008)
Case details for

In re J.H.

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Sep 18, 2008

Citations

No. A121260 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2008)