From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re A.B.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Jan 12, 2012
A132156 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)

Opinion

A132156 A132662

01-12-2012

In re A.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.B., Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW096350

A.B. (appellant) appeals from two dispositions that commit him to Log Cabin Ranch. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.

On August 2, 2010, appellant hijacked a car in Vallejo, drove to San Francisco, hit a parked car while being pursued by police, and violently resisted arrest.

Based on these facts, on August 4, 2010, a petition was filed alleging appellant came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he had committed several criminal offenses including vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), driving recklessly while trying to evade a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), resisting a police officer through force or violence (Pen. Code, § 69), and resisting arrest. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).)

The juvenile court did not conduct a formal jurisdictional hearing. Instead, it placed appellant on home detention subject to the supervision of the probation department.

That plan did not work. In late October and early November 2010, appellant robbed and assaulted two San Francisco Muni patrons.

On November 15, 2010, a new petition was filed alleging appellant came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he committed two counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (a)), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)

Again, the court did not conduct an immediate jurisdictional hearing. Instead, it placed appellant on home detention subject to the supervision of the probation department.

Again, that plan failed. On March 20, 2011, San Francisco police officers received a report of a burglary in progress. When one of the officers arrived at the location indicated, he saw appellant running from the area. Appellant matched the description of the suspect and the officer, who knew appellant from prior contacts, ordered him to stop. Appellant refused and continued to run.

Based on these facts, on March 22, 2011, a petition was filed alleging appellant committed several offenses including resisting arrest. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).)

The case proceeded to a contested jurisdictional hearing where the court found the resisting arrest allegation to be true.

A dispositional hearing was scheduled. The report prepared prior to that hearing indicated appellant faced many challenges. Appellant had numerous prior contacts with the law and his criminal behavior was escalating to include robbery, burglary, conspiracy, vehicle theft, resisting arrest, obstruction of justice, carjacking, receiving stolen property, and terrorist threats. In addition, between December 2010 and March 2011, appellant tested positive for marijuana no less than 20 times. Finally and ominously, appellant associated with a group known as the Harbor Road gang, and the members of that gang were in the midst of an internal conflict that resulted in some members being killed. In light of these concerns, the report recommended that appellant be committed to the Log Cabin Ranch subject to a strict list of conditions.

At the dispositional hearing, appellant's counsel argued appellant should not be committed to the Log Cabin Ranch because juvenile authorities had not evaluated his situation properly. Counsel argued that instead, appellant should again be placed on home probation.

The trial court rejected that argument and ordered that appellant be committed to the Log Cabin Ranch.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal. The appeal was assigned case number

A132156.

Meanwhile, on June 20, 2011, the court conducted a jurisdictional hearing on the petitions that had been filed on August 4, 2010, and November 15, 2010. Both petitions were resolved through negotiation. Appellant admitted charges of felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)), felony assault by means of force likely to product great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), misdemeanor vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and felony resisting a police officer through force or violence. (Pen. Code, § 69.)

A dispositional hearing was conducted on July 5, 2011. By that point, appellant had already spent some time at Log Cabin Ranch and was doing very well. According to the dispositional report, "Since his placement, [appellant] has made progress and positive change. . . . Within a month of being placed at Log Cabin Ranch, [appellant] has concluded he needs to change his mentality, participate in individual therapy to express his feelings surrounding the violence he has observed within the community and set goals to live a productive life. . . . Upon completing the Log Cabin Ranch program, [appellant] will transition back into the community as an educated 18-year-old who is ready to proceed with his life as an adult while receiving support services from the Juvenile Probation Department and various agencies who have [appellant's] best interest at heart." Because of these positive changes, appellant and his father both believed that Log Cabin Ranch was "an appropriate placement for [appellant] to address his issues, complete his high school education, obtain job readiness skills and fulfill his Court ordered commitment."

Appellant's counsel agreed that appellant was doing well at Log Cabin Ranch and that a commitment there was appropriate.

The trial court agreed with these assessments and committed appellant to the Log Cabin Ranch for a period not to exceed six years.

Appellant then filed another appeal. It was assigned case number A132662 and was consolidated with the prior appeal.

We have reviewed the records of both appeals and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The trial court found the allegation in the March 22, 2011 petition to be true, and its ruling is supported by substantial evidence. The court did not commit any prejudicial evidentiary rulings. Appellant was represented by effective, (indeed aggressive) counsel.

Prior to accepting appellant's admission to the August 4, 2010, and November 15, 2010 petitions, the court made sure appellant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving. The court also made sure appellant understood the consequences of his admission. We see no error in the disposition. Again, appellant was effectively represented by counsel.

We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

The dispositions are affirmed.

Jones, P.J.

We concur:

Simons, J.

Bruiniers, J.


Summaries of

In re A.B.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Jan 12, 2012
A132156 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)
Case details for

In re A.B.

Case Details

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

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

Date published: Jan 12, 2012

Citations

A132156 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2012)