From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Lance M.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Dec 22, 2009
No. B216968 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. PJ43597 Fred J. Fujioka, Judge.

California Appellate Project and Dee A. Hayashi, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


KLEIN, P. J.

Lance M. appeals from the trial court’s order deferring entry of judgment (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 790) after it was determined he committed second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). As there is no final order or judgment from which to appeal (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 800), we dismiss the matter as premature.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Facts.

On August 16, 2008, 13-year-old Lance M. and a companion entered a gift shop at the Magic Mountain Theme Park in Santa Clarita. Loss prevention officers observed Lance M.’s companion select several items, conceal them in his pants pocket, then leave the store without making any attempt to pay for the items. Once outside the store, Lance M. and his companion hid the items they had taken in a nearby bush.

Lance M. and his companion then went back into the store and, once again, Lance M.’s companion selected items, placed them in his pocket and left the store without paying for them. Moments later, Lance M. and his companion were apprehended by loss prevention officers. The two young men were taken into custody and transferred to the Santa Clarita Sheriff’s Station for booking.

2. Procedural history.

On October 28, 2008, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging that, on or about August 16, 2008, Lance M. committed second degree commercial burglary in a building occupied by Six Flags Magic Mountain.

At proceedings held on May 8, 2009, it was determined that Lance M. wished to admit that he had committed second degree burglary, then have the court defer entry of judgment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 790. After Lance M. waived his right to a court trial, his right to confront and cross examine the witnesses against him, his right to subpoena witnesses and present a defense and his privilege against self-incrimination, Lance M. admitted that “on or about August 16, 200[8], in the County of Los Angeles, [he] committed the crime of second-degree commercial burglary [in] violation of Penal Code section 459, a felony, that [he] burglarized Six Flags Magic Mountain[.]”

Welfare and Institutions Code section 790 provides in relevant part: “(a) Notwithstanding Section 654 or 654.2, or any other provision of law, this article shall apply whenever a case is before the juvenile court for a determination of whether a minor is a person described in Section 602 because of the commission of a felony offense, if all of the following circumstances apply: [¶] (1)The minor has not previously been declared to be a ward of the court for the commission of a felony offense. [¶] (2) The offense charged is not one of the offenses enumerated in subdivision (b) of Section 707. [¶] (3) The minor has not previously been committed to the custody of the Youth Authority. [¶] (4) The minor’s record does not indicate that probation has ever been revoked without being completed. [¶] (5) The minor is at least 14 years of age at the time of the hearing. [¶] (6) The minor is eligible for probation pursuant to Section 1203.06 of the Penal Code. [¶] (b) The prosecuting attorney shall review his or her file to determine whether or not paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a) apply. If the minor is found eligible for deferred entry of judgment, the prosecuting attorney shall file a declaration in writing with the court or state for the record the grounds upon which the determination is based, and shall make this information available to the minor and his or her attorney. Upon a finding that the minor is also suitable for deferred entry of judgment and would benefit from education, treatment, and rehabilitation efforts, the court may grant deferred entry of judgment. Under this procedure, the court may set the hearing for deferred entry of judgment at the initial appearance under Section 657. The court shall make findings on the record that a minor is appropriate for deferred entry of judgment pursuant to this article in any case where deferred entry of judgment is granted.”

After the trial court then found that Lance M.’s birth date was February 26, 1995, that Lance M. lived in Los Angeles County, that he “knowingly [and] intelligently waived his constitutional rights,” and that he “underst[ood] the nature of the conduct alleged in the petition and the possible consequences of his admission,” the trial court placed Lance M. on “deferred entry of judgment probation under” specific terms and conditions. The trial court then addressed Lance M. and stated: “If you do everything you’re supposed to do, I’ll see you back a year from now. Charges will be dismissed, and you won’t have a record.”

In a letter from Lance M.’s father, it was indicated that Lance M. wished to appeal from the trial court’s order. Accordingly, the letter dated June 1, 2009, and filed June 5, 2009, has been construed as a notice of appeal.

On August 7, 2009, the California Appellate Project was appointed to represent Lance M. on appeal.

CONTENTIONS

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to, after conducting an independent review of the record, dismiss the action as there was no final judgment or order from which to appeal (see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 800).

By notice filed October 1, 2009, the clerk of this court advised Lance M. to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.

REVIEW ON APPEAL

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.) As there is no judgment or final order from which to appeal (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 800), the matter will be dismissed as premature.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur: KITCHING J., ALDRICH J.


Summaries of

In re Lance M.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Dec 22, 2009
No. B216968 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009)
Case details for

In re Lance M.

Case Details

Full title:In re LANCE M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

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

Date published: Dec 22, 2009

Citations

No. B216968 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009)