Opinion
A152139
05-07-2018
In re L.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J41682)
L.W. appeals from a juvenile court order declining to dismiss his wardship petitions pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 and declining to seal his juvenile record pursuant to section 781. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the appellate record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
Except where otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. October 2012 Original Petition
A juvenile wardship petition filed in October 2012 alleged that L.W. possessed Clonazepam (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4060) and resisted and obstructed a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a) (1)) on September 11, 2012. According to the petition and subsequent probation report, L.W. had an argument with another minor at his high school, refused police orders to back away, and physically resisted the officer's attempt to detain him. L.W. was arrested, and a search yielded a medicine bottle with prescription drugs that did not belong to him.
B. March 2013 Amended Petition
In March 2013, an amended petition added allegations that L.W. committed misdemeanor battery on January 31, 2013. (Pen. Code, § 243.2, subd. (a).) As to this matter, it was asserted that L.W. acknowledged to high school staff that he hit another student in the school bathroom.
In a Waiver of Constitutional Rights and Declaration in Support of Minor's Motion to Admit, L.W. admitted the allegations of resisting arrest. The remaining allegations of Clonazepam possession and battery were dismissed.
At a dispositional hearing in April 2013, L.W. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court. The court placed him in his mother's custody, ordered that he could reside independently after he turned 18 at his probation officer's discretion, and granted probation with conditions including drug testing.
L.W. violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for marijuana use in May 2013; he served a weekend in juvenile hall.
C. July 2013 Petition
A new wardship petition was filed on July 31, 2013, alleging that L.W. had committed second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) the previous day. According to a probation department report, L.W. approached an individual who had just withdrawn $100 from an ATM, pointed a BB gun at him, and demanded cash. The victim handed over his wallet. When the victim refused L.W.'s demand to turn over his car keys, L.W. and his accomplice fled. Police found and detained them in the area on the same day, based on the description provided by the victim. In a consent search conducted of the home of L.W.'s grandmother, police found credit cards in the victim's name, a BB gun and clothing that matched the description given by the victim, and the victim's wallet in a dumpster by the house. L.W. admitted he owned the clothing but denied he was involved in the robbery. During a strip search, police found $100 on L.W.'s person.
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court denied L.W.'s motion to suppress evidence and found true the robbery allegation.
According to the disposition report prepared by L.W.'s probation officer, L.W. admitted pointing the gun at his victim and robbing him while his nephew watched. L.W. expressed remorse and claimed his judgment had been impaired by his consumption of alcohol. The probation officer noted that L.W. had performed poorly on probation due to the robbery offense and positive tests for marijuana, and his school performance was poor because he had only completed freshman credits and had a history of truancies and suspensions. A September 2013 "JAIS assessment" indicated there was a high risk that L.W. would reoffend. The probation officer recommended a four month commitment in an appropriate program.
After a dispositional hearing on September 27, 2013, the juvenile court ordered that L.W. remain a ward of the court, placed him in the Rite of Passage program in Nevada, and imposed standard conditions of probation.
D. Review Reports
Reports of February 2014, August 2014, and November 2014 advised that L.W. entered Rite of Passage in November 2013, participated in group counseling, substance abuse counseling, and a culinary arts program for vocational training, earned his high school diploma, and completed his stay at Rite of Passage on July 4, 2014. He began vocational school that month at the Art Institute of California, was living in an apartment near the school, and completed his volunteer hours by catering events and working at a hospital. He had no new delinquency referrals. Because he had reached the age of majority, his probation officer recommended termination of wardship "successfully."
On November 5, 2014, the juvenile court declared that jurisdiction over L.W. was terminated successfully and granted him non-minor dependent status.
E. Motion to Dismiss Petitions and Seal Records
In July 2017, L.W.'s attorney filed a motion seeking dismissal of the petitions under section 782 and the sealing of his juvenile records pursuant to section 781. The motion asserted that dismissal of the petitions would be in the interest of justice because L.W. was no longer in need of rehabilitation, and the records should be sealed because he had not been convicted of any offense since jurisdiction was terminated.
Section 782 provides that the juvenile court may set aside findings and dismiss a wardship petition if it finds "that the interests of justice and the welfare of the person who is the subject of the petition require that dismissal, or if it finds that he or she is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation." Section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(A) provides that a person who has reached 18 years of age may petition the court to seal his or her juvenile records, and the court shall order specified records sealed "[i]f, after hearing, the court finds that since the termination of jurisdiction . . . he or she has not been convicted of a felony or of any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude and that rehabilitation has been attained to the satisfaction of the court." However, subdivision (a)(1)(D) of section 781 provides that a petition to seal records relating to an offense listed in section 707, subdivision (b), which was committed after the person turned 14 and resulted in the adjudication of wardship, shall not be considered except in enumerated circumstances. Robbery is one of the offenses listed in section 707, subdivision (b). --------
The motion noted L.W.'s "excellent" performance during the Rite of Passage program, his graduation from high school, and his attendance at vocational school. He had no new criminal violations in the two years, two months, since jurisdiction was successfully terminated, and he successfully participated in non-minor dependent services until turning 21. In addition, defense counsel asserted in a declaration that L.W. had not been arrested since the termination of the juvenile court's jurisdiction, had graduated from high school, was employed, and feared that his juvenile record would prevent him from achieving future academic and career goals.
The motion was heard on July 17, 2017. The prosecutor objected to sealing the records because L.W. had committed a robbery. (See § 781, subd. (a)(1)(D) [limitations on sealing records related to offense under § 707, subd. (b)]; § 707, subd. (b)(3) [listing robbery].) Defense counsel argued that L.W. had satisfactorily completed probation and had excelled at Rite of Passage and as a non-minor dependent, so the court should dismiss the petitions under section 782; and with the robbery petition dismissed, there would no longer be a bar to sealing the records under section 781. (See In re David T. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 866.) The prosecutor replied that the petitions should not be dismissed because L.W. had not done anything extraordinary, but merely followed social norms and obeyed the law.
The court noted L.W.'s concern about adverse consequences due to his juvenile record, but observed that nothing "like that has occurred, yet." Defense counsel argued that she was trying to prevent problems for L.W. and claimed the probation officer told her that L.W. deserved to have the motion granted.
The court denied L.W.'s motion to dismiss the petitions and to seal his record, without prejudice, concluding that the statutory standards had not been met: "I see he just turned 21 this year, and his probation was terminated not even three years ago. He is certainly on the right track, but I don't think a sufficient case has been made to treat this individual with this type of 707 offense. He had difficulty in others, and I don't see a basis at this point to deviate from the 781. . . . I have to agree with the District Attorney, I don't think it's extraordinary other than obeying the law, which is the next step taken."
This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
L.W.'s appellate counsel has represented in a declaration accompanying the opening brief in this appeal that she advised him that a Wende brief would be filed and that within 30 days he could personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wanted to bring to this court's attention.
We have not received any supplemental brief from L.W.
We find no arguable issues on appeal. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
III. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
/s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
SIMONS, J.