Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. 06CEJ601284-1. Timothy A. Kams, Judge.
Kathleen C. Page, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., Kane, J.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Appellant, Perla C., was charged in a petition, filed in Merced County Superior Court on June 7, 2006, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, with five counts and two gang enhancement allegations involving the brandishing of a firearm on February 9, 2006. Count one alleged felonious involvement in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)). Counts two and four alleged misdemeanor brandishing of a firearm (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)) with gang enhancement allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (d)). Counts three and five alleged misdemeanor disturbing the peace (§ 415, subd. (1)) with gang enhancement allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (d)). The prosecutor also filed a determination of eligibility for deferred entry of judgment.
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
A first amended petition was filed on July 7, 2006, adding a sixth allegation that Perla trespassed school property on June 7, 2006 (§ 602, subd. (l)). Perla failed to appear for her arraignment on July 10, 2006, and a bench warrant was issued for her arrest.
A second amended petition was filed in Merced County Superior Court on October 5, 2006, adding allegations that on October 3, 2006, Perla feloniously possessed methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), count seven) and possessed narcotic paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, count eight). On October 12, 2006, after being advised of and waiving her constitutional rights and told the consequences of her plea, Perla admitted all eight counts and enhancement allegations. The admissions were made with the understanding that Perla was eligible for deferred entry of judgment. The court found Perla and her mother were living in Fresno and ordered the matter transferred to Fresno County.
On October 16, 2006, the juvenile court in Fresno County ordered Perla’s detention. On October 17, 2006, the court accepted jurisdiction from Merced County. The court found Perla eligible for deferred entry of judgment and ordered a suitability report. A report by the probation department evaluating the deferred entry of judgment noted that Perla’s academic performance was poor. Perla’s web site displayed pictures of her with known gang members, in gang poses, and wearing gang clothing. The probation officer concluded that Perla was not suitable for the delayed entry of judgment program.
On February 16, 2007, Perla informed the juvenile court in Fresno County that she wanted to withdraw conditional admissions. The matter was transferred to Merced County.
On February 27, 2007, the juvenile court in Merced County permitted Perla to withdraw her admissions of the allegations from the second amended petition. Perla and her counsel then worked out a new plea agreement. Perla would admit counts one, two, four, and seven. Counts three, five, six, and eight and the enhancements as to those counts would be dismissed. The enhancements to counts two and four were also stricken. Both counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.
On the afternoon of February 9, 2006, Perla and another girl, A. M., approached two other girls, D. C. and S. P. Perla and A. M. challenged the other girls to fight. Officers who responded to the scene found that Perla and A. M. both possessed a knife. The other girls did not know why Perla and A. M. wanted to fight. Perla stated she wanted to fight D. C.’s sister, a gang member, because the sister had caused a beating of A. M.’s brother a few weeks earlier. The police photographed Perla and A. M. flashing gang signs. Perla admitted being a member of “A Town,” a Sureno criminal street gang. On October 3, 2006, Perla was taken into custody pursuant to a bench warrant. She was found in possession of a glass pipe used for smoking drugs and two bindles of methamphetamine.
The court advised Perla of the consequences of her plea, as well as of her constitutional rights. Defense counsel noted her objection to Perla admitting count one and noted for the record that she had discussed this matter with Perla. Perla waived her rights and admitted counts one, two, four, and seven. The court dismissed the remaining allegations. The juvenile court in Merced County found that Perla’s residence was Fresno County and ordered the case transferred.
The probation department in Fresno County issued a report indicating that there had been no reports of misbehavior by Perla during her commitment to the Juvenile Justice Campus. The probation officer from Merced County reported that Perla was entrenched in a gang lifestyle. Perla originally had been placed in a deferred entry of judgment program and failed to appear for disposition. She absconded and was later arrested on new allegations. The probation officer recommended Perla’s commitment to the New Directions Program. The probation officer noted that it was likely that Perla was more involved in drugs than she admits and remains in denial with much of her unacceptable lifestyle. The probation officer recommended Perla be placed on electronic monitoring, be ordered to participate in a substance abuse program, and be ordered to obey the rules and direction of the staff at the Day Reporting Center.
At the disposition hearing on March 16, 2007, the juvenile court expressly exercised its discretion to find the gang allegation in count one to be a felony. The court noted the remaining allegations were misdemeanors. The court noted the maximum term of confinement for all the offenses was four years. The court found Perla to be a ward of the court, ordered her to serve 90 days at the Juvenile Justice Campus, and, upon her release, to report to the Day Reporting Center for 180 days.
Perla was placed on probation upon various terms and conditions, including that she not use or possess alcohol or controlled substances. Perla was ordered to attend substance abuse and psychological assessment to evaluate whether she needed counseling. Perla was ordered not to associate with anyone known to her to be a gang member.
Perla’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Perla was advised she could file her own brief with this court. By letter on September 14, 2007, we invited Perla to submit additional briefing. To date she has not done so.
DISCUSSION
Perla was fully advised of the consequences of her plea and her constitutional rights. The parties stipulated to, and the court found, a factual basis for Perla’s admissions. Perla was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The juvenile court expressly noted it was exercising its discretion to find count one to be a felony. The terms and conditions of probation appear to be reasonably related to Perla’s rehabilitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, subd. (b); In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1033 [conditions of probation impermissible for adult probationer may be imposed in rehabilitation of minors].)
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.