Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 76865
Siggins, J.
Justin P. appeals orders of the juvenile court sustaining a petition that alleged he drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and placing him on probation. Counsel has briefed no issues and asks that we review the record of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Justin has not filed a supplemental brief. After our review of the record, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
A petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that 17-year-old Justin drove a car while under the influence of alcohol and when his blood alcohol content was more than .08%. The jurisdictional hearing was contested.
Justin’s motion to suppress evidence, scheduled to be heard at the time of the jurisdictional contest, was conceded.
Witness Mae Villanueva looked out the front window of her home one evening and saw young people screaming at a boy and trying to pull him out of a car. The boy appeared to be resisting their efforts. The boy’s head suddenly tilted back and it appeared to Villanueva like something was wrong so she called the police. Villanueva then saw the boy drive away, followed by the other young people in another car. A few minutes later, the boy returned driving the car, and a few minutes after that, the police arrived.
Officer Seann Graham responded to Villanueva’s report. At the scene, Villanueva identified the boy she had seen driving the car. Officer Graham identified Justin in court as that person.
When Officer Graham saw Justin at the scene, he observed that Justin’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, his speech was slurred, and he was having trouble standing. Graham administered several field sobriety tests and Justin’s performance was impaired. A breath test administered to Justin gave a reading of .10, and a second test gave the same reading.
Sergeant Michael Guldner also responded to Villanueva’s report, and interviewed Justin’s friend Kyle M., who lived next door to Villanueva. Kyle said that Justin was drunk when he came to Kyle’s house that evening, and Kyle was unable to stop Justin from driving away. Kyle said he chased Justin in another car, and never said someone else was driving Justin’s car.
Sergeant Guldner interviewed Kyle in the kitchen of his parents’ home, with both parents present. Sergeant Guldner noticed an odor of alcohol around Kyle’s parents. Kyle’s mother later testified that she and her husband had been at a dinner party where she had a glass of wine and her husband also drank alcohol.
At the jurisdictional hearing, Kyle told a different story. He testified that Justin came to his house at about 9:00 p.m. When Justin said he was going to leave, Kyle told Justin that he did not want Justin to drive home because he was intoxicated. Although he initially said he could drive, Justin gave Kyle his car keys. Kyle and his friend Alice P. put Justin in the back seat, and Alice took the keys and got into the car. Alice drove away and Kyle followed them.
Both cars then returned because Justin left his cell phone at Kyle’s house. Alice stopped Justin’s car in front of Kyle’s house, and ran inside the house to get Justin’s cell phone. When she came out, Justin was standing in front of the house and the police had arrived. Kyle’s parents returned home a few minutes later.
On cross-examination, Kyle denied that he had told Sergeant Guldner that he was unable to stop Justin from driving, or that he chased Justin in another car. If the sergeant testified that he said those things, the sergeant would be lying. Kyle’s mother testified she was present when her son was interviewed by Sergeant Gulden, and Kyle did not tell him that Justin drove the car that night.
Kyle’s mother testified that Kyle told Sergeant Guldner he was worried about Justin driving home, and that he (Kyle) told Alice to drive Justin’s car and he would follow. Justin’s counsel made an offer of proof that Kyle’s father would give the same testimony, but the court declined to hear that testimony on the ground that it was cumulative.
Alice testified that she arrived when Kyle and Justin were walking out of Kyle’s house. She offered to drive Justin home understanding that Kyle would follow in another car. They put Justin in the back seat, and Alice drove and Kyle followed her in his car. She turned around when Justin said he left his cell phone at Kyle’s house. She went into Kyle’s house to look for Justin’s cell phone, but was unable to find it. When she came out of the house, police officers were present, and Justin was sitting on the curb. Alice waited at the scene for half an hour to an hour until her father picked her up, but she did not speak to the police. Alice had known Justin for approximately a year and a half. Kyle had been her boyfriend and he was Justin’s best friend.
On recross examination, Alice testified that she drove to Kyle’s home alone in her own car, and her father “came to Kyle’s house in his car to make sure [she] would come home. So he followed [her] in [her] car on the way home.” On redirect examination, Alice testified she did not try to talk to police that night “[b]ecause once [her] dad said he was coming, and he told [her] for [her] to talk to a police officer [she] had to have a parent’s consent, [she] didn’t attempt to talk to a police officer because [she] didn’t want to cause anything.”
Alice testified that she found out the day after this incident that Justin was accused of drunk driving, but did not give police a statement. She gave a defense investigator a statement when she was contacted sometime later.
The court did not find Justin’s witnesses credible. The court stated: “I believe they tried to stop him, but they didn’t. [¶] They were honest at the scene, at least Kyle was, with the sergeant. And then, for whatever reason, Kyle decided to come in here and say the sergeant is a liar. [¶] That is beyond the pale.” The court sustained the petition on both counts, and ordered Justin detained pending the dispositional hearing. Five days later, the court denied a request to reconsider its ruling and release Justin pending the dispositional hearing.
When defense counsel argued Justin’s detention would cause him great hardship, the court stated: “Well, it’s a great hardship to expect one’s friends to come in and commit perjury, which is exactly what he sat there and allowed and, I have to assume, encouraged it at some point.”
The court stated: “I’m absolutely certain he drove. His friends came to court and perjured themselves on his behalf, each telling the same story. [¶] Whether he had a chance to coach them prior—I’m convinced perjury was committed on his behalf. He sat there and either allowed or orchestrated that perjury. [¶] In either sense of that scenario, it was a bad, bad thing, and he’s detained pending disposition.”
At the dispositional hearing, Justin was adjudged a ward of the court and ordered to reside in his parents’ home. He was placed on probation with conditions including, inter alia, that he serve 15 days in juvenile hall with credit for 15 days already served, that he have no contact with Kyle or anyone his probation officer or parents tell him not to associate with, that he observe a 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. curfew, and that he pay a $50 restitution fine and a $1,238.25 combined court fine and penalty assessment. Justin’s driver’s license was also suspended through February 17, 2008. He timely appealed.
Upon completion of payment of the fines and fees, Justin was ordered to be released from all orders of the juvenile court. There are no issues arising from any conditions of probation in light of the court’s termination of jurisdiction upon payment of the fine and penalty.
Justin was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding, and there was no error in the dispositional order. Appellate counsel advised Justin of his right to file a supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of counsel’s opening brief, but no supplemental brief has been filed. Full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P.J., Pollak, J.