Opinion
A133037
12-20-2011
In re D.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.J., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Mateo County Super. Ct. No. JUV79461)
D.J., a minor (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 submitted a declaration stating that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was 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.
Appellant's two and one-half year journey through the juvenile justice system commenced when a petition was filed on April 24, 2009, by the Juvenile Division of the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office seeking to have him adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602 subd. (a)), and alleging one felony count of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (b)), and misdemeanor counts of battery upon a person (§ 242), petty theft (§ 484), and contributing to the delinquency of a minor (§ 272, subd. (a)(1)).
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Appellant admitted the commercial burglary charge, and was placed on probation and remanded into the custody of his parents. The other charges were dismissed. The burglary charge related to the theft of alcohol from a Rite Aid store. As a term of his probation, appellant was ordered to complete 60 hours of public service.
A notice of probation violation was subsequently filed alleging that appellant's urine tested positive for cocaine.
Before this alleged violation of probation was adjudicated, another notice of probation violation was filed alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his probation by attempting to alter a submitted urine sample, testing positive for marijuana, and being truant and misbehaving at school. He admitted the marijuana use allegation on March 10, 2010. He was continued as a ward of the court, and was ordered to serve 60 days of a 180-day therapeutic detention. Eight days later, on March 18, a new petition was filed against appellant alleging that he tested positive for both cocaine and marijuana. This time, he was ordered detained. Appellant admitted the violations.
The next petition charging probation violations was filed on July 13, 2010. It alleged that appellant had unexcused absences or was tardy from school, and that he had used marijuana. It was recommended that, if resolved, appellant should be ordered to serve the additional 120 days of therapeutic detention still outstanding. That same day, a further petition was filed alleging that appellant had violated his probation by using methamphetamine. Appellant admitted this last petition. The court ordered appellant to complete an additional 60 days of therapeutic detention.
The next petition charging probation violations was filed on October 7, 2010. It alleged that appellant was using marijuana and was misbehaving in school. Appellant admitted these allegations. He was ordered to serve the remaining 60 days of therapeutic detention.
On November 1, 2010, another probation violation petition was filed alleging that appellant left his mother's home without permission and had "absconded." Before this petition was adjudicated, another petition was filed on November 5, alleging that appellant had violated his probation by removing his electronic monitoring device without permission, and by damaging county property. The allegations of this latest petition were admitted by appellant. On January 13, 2011, appellant was removed from home and placed at Our Common Ground.
All further dates are in the calendar year 2011, unless otherwise indicated.
On or about March 27, appellant absconded from Our Common Ground, and the next day a notice of probation violation was filed as a result. An arrest warrant was issued by the juvenile court. Appellant was arrested in San Francisco, and ultimately the juvenile court in that county ordered appellant transferred to San Mateo County.
Before the transfer occurred, a new juvenile petition was filed in San Francisco County on April 5, alleging appellant had committed a second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)), assault by means likely to result in great bodily harm (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), false imprisonment (§ 236), and misdemeanor making a false representation to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)).
This petition was later amended reducing the assault allegation to a misdemeanor.
--------
Appellant admitted the robbery and misdemeanor assault allegations. Appellant was then transferred to San Mateo County for disposition. Once there, appellant admitted to violating the terms of his earlier probation.
As to disposition, the San Mateo County Probation Department recommended that appellant be placed at Fouts Springs Youth Facility, which would "offer the Minor structure and accountability while at the same time reducing his ability to run from the program." The department favored Fouts Springs over Camp Glenwood, but "would not be against" placement at either facility. He was placed at Fouts Springs by the juvenile court. However, Fouts Springs closed due to budgetary issues, and a new placement was required. The probation department recommended either that appellant be placed at Camp Glenwood or Rite of Passage, Silver State Academy in Nevada. He was interviewed by Rite of Passage, and in a letter dated July 19, its admissions manager stated that appellant was an acceptable candidate for placement there, noting too that all of appellant's treatment needs could be provided.
A contested dispositional hearing was held on August 9. Testifying at the hearing was Tami Devine from the probation department. She testified that there was very minimal drug rehabilitation programming available at Camp Glenwood. Appellant needs structure similar to what was offered at Fouts Springs, and Camp Glenwood would not provide that structure for him.
Appellant's mother testified that she did not want appellant placed out of state because it was too far for the family to travel to visit him. Appellant's father testified similarly. Appellant also testified that he would like to go to Camp Glenwood. He felt he was making progress in sorting out his life and behavior, including getting treatment for drug abuse.
The probation department case worker for appellant, Michael Klinger, testified that he believed the most appropriate program for appellant was Rite of Passage. He was given an opportunity to explain why he thought this was the best placement. As to travel, Mr. Klinger stated that his department and Rite of Passage would "share vouchers" allowing appellant's family to fly to Reno to visit appellant. There also was a shuttle at the airport which would take them to the facility and back to the airport. He had also offered to set them up with Skype so they could communicate regularly with appellant via the Internet. He did not think that Camp Glenwood had programs needed by appellant equal to those offered at Rite of Passage.
After the witnesses presented their testimony, and stating that the court also had read and considered the pre-permanency case plan interim review report submitted by the probation department, the juvenile court ordered that appellant be placed at Rite of Passage. In making this placement, the judge placed on the record her reasons for choosing Rite of Passage and not at Camp Glenwood.
We have reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the contested dispositional hearings, and have concluded that all findings were supported by the evidence. There was no error in the disposition, as it was fully supported factually, and was chosen by the juvenile 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.
_________________________
RUVOLO, P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
REARDON, J.
_________________________
SEPULVEDA, J.