Opinion
A131504
08-15-2011
In re Larry W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY W., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J07-00346)
Appellant Larry W. 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 declared that he notified appellant 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.
A supplemental petition was filed seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), and alleged one count of possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Safety Code, § 11351.5), one count of possessing cocaine base while being armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Safety Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)), one count of being a minor in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (a)), and one count of carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(2)(F)).
Appellant entered a plea of no contest to the possession of cocaine base for sale count, and the count of being a minor in possession of a firearm. At that time he was advised of the rights he was waiving by entering the plea, and was also advised that he faced a maximum period of confinement of five years eight months. Appellant's counsel stipulated that there was a factual basis for the plea. In exchange for the plea, all other charges alleged in the supplemental petition were dismissed. Time was not waived, and the matter was continued to February 9, 2011, for a dispositional hearing at the request of appellant's counsel.
A supplemental disposition report was prepared and filed by the probation department before the disposition hearing. That report noted that appellant, then 16 years old, had been a ward of the court for three years, and that the current detention was his ninth. His mother had been incarcerated for most of his life, and his father was deceased. Appellant had been supervised by members of his extended family for several years, although those custodial arrangements proved to be short lived. A family friend was his current legal guardian.
In the three years appellant had been in the juvenile justice system, he had been tried unsuccessfully on home detention. He had also served three separate terms at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (the Ranch). After his second term at the Ranch, he was terminated unsuccessfully from parole. At the request of the probation department, appellant was screened for possible placement again with the Ranch, or with the Youth Offender Treatment Program (YOTP). He was found to be a candidate at either institution. The probation department recommended that appellant be committed to YOTP because of his unmet needs for structure, consistency, and accountability. It was felt that the program at YOTP would also provide him with needed educational and vocational environments, help him develop the skills needed for independent living, and counseling that might also be required.
At the dispositional hearing, appellant's counsel indicated that he was willing to accept a placement at either the Ranch or YOTP, but that he preferred the Ranch. Ultimately, the court declared appellant to be a ward of the court and decided to follow the recommendation of the probation department by "go[ing] up a notch," committing appellant to YOTP for a maximum period of confinement of five years eight months. Appellant was awarded credit for time served. Terms of probation were also imposed.
We have reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the dispositional hearings, and have concluded there was no error in the disposition, as it was fully supported factually, and was chosen by the trial judge in accordance with applicable juvenile law principles. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, 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: Sepulveda, J. Rivera, J.