Opinion
G053921
02-22-2017
In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.P., Defendant and Appellant.
Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. DL037936-001) OPINION Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Fred W. Slaughter, Judge. Affirmed. Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
J.P. admitted two counts of forcible lewd acts on a child under 14 years old. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b).) The victim was his younger sister.
The juvenile court found the allegations true beyond a reasonable doubt, found a factual basis for the plea, and determined the offenses were felonies with a maximum term of confinement of ten years. J.P. was declared a ward of the court, placed on probation and ordered to serve 180 days in a juvenile facility.
After J.P. successfully completed probation he filed a "Motion to Set Aside Findings and Dismiss Petition" (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 782 (section 782)) and a "Motion to Seal the Records" (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786, subd. (d) (section 786)). The victim submitted a letter on his behalf supporting the motions.
The court conducted a hearing on the motions. Among other things, J.P.'s counsel argued it was in J.P.'s interest and in the interest of justice to grant the section 782 motion because: J.P was 14 and 15 years old when he committed the offenses; he addressed the underlying issues during his five years of probation; he showed remorse; he successfully completed sex offender therapy as ordered; and he completed reunification therapy with his sister.
The prosecutor opposed the section 782 motion, arguing the offenses were "very serious" and "[t]here's been no indication either that the minor is in no need of treatment or rehabilitation." The prosecutor also opposed the section 786 motion, arguing the offenses were statutorily ineligible for sealing.
The court stated it considered all of the admissible evidence offered as well as the goals of the juvenile justice system including: (1) serving the best interests of the delinquent; and (2) providing for the protection and safety of the public.
The court denied the section 782 motion, explaining it did so, "under the applicable standards in its discretion." The court also denied the section 786 motion, ruling the Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b) offenses were ineligible for sealing under section 786, subdivision (d).
This timely appeal followed.
We appointed counsel to represent J.P. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court she found no arguable issues to assert on J.P.'s behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) To assist us in our independent review of the record, counsel suggested we consider the issues discussed below.
Counsel and this court both notified J.P. he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, we received no supplemental brief from him and the time to file one has passed.
DISCUSSION
We have independently reviewed the entire record according to our obligations under Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and we have found no arguable issues on appeal.
The court had discretion to grant or deny the section 782 motion and we perceive no abuse of that discretion. (See In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393; In re W.R.W. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1037.)
Furthermore, the court correctly denied the section 786 motion because the Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b) offenses were not eligible for sealing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 707, subd. (b) & 786, subd. (d).)
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
THOMPSON, J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, ACTING P. J. FYBEL, J.