In re Deron D.

In re Deron D.

Filed 8/18/08 In re Deron D. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re DERON D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DERON D., Defendant and Appellant.	A120785 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ-07008735)

Appellant Deron D. (appellant) appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellants 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 appellant has been notified that no issues are being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead is being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.

A petition was filed in San Mateo County seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code,  600 et seq.), and alleging one misdemeanor count of resisting arrest (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)). A contested jurisdictional hearing on the petition was held on December 11, 2007.

The essential facts surrounding the charge took place on the night of May 11, 2007, while uniformed San Mateo Police Officer Bryan Thompson was on patrol. He was requested to investigate a call concerning graffiting by juveniles on a catwalk connecting the east and west sides of Highway 101. As he approached the catwalk, he saw a number of juveniles running from the area to be investigated. There was also a group of approximately 6 to 10 individuals congregating at the street level base of the catwalk. He ordered the group to sit next to a nearby fence until the officer could figure out what [was] going on. One of the youths, identified by Officer Thompson as appellant, approached Officer Thompson and yelled in response: Why are you fucking stopping us? Youre always fucking harassing us. You have no right. Appellants approach was described by the officer as being aggressive.

In response to this behavior, Officer Thompson told appellant to stop and grabbed his arm, pulling him to the ground. He told appellant to calm down but was unsuccessful in doing so. Appellant also ignored the officers instruction to remain seated on the ground. He got up and walked to a nearby driveway. The officer felt it was necessary to maintain control over the group of juveniles so the two officers present could continue with their investigation of the complaint about graffiti activity. The two officers present then grabbed appellants arms and forced him to sit on the ground. Appellant refused to calm down, so Officer Thompson placed him in handcuffs. Because of his continued aggressive behavior, one of the other officers who came to the scene pepper sprayed appellant. At that point appellants brother, also a juvenile, tried to intervene and was also pepper sprayed a little bit. An ambulance was called to attend to the pepper sprayed people, and appellant was placed under arrest because his conduct was delaying the officers investigation.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile judge found the petition had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because appellant lived with his mother in Alameda County, the court ordered that appellants case be transferred to that county for further proceedings.

The transfer was accepted by the Alameda County Juvenile Court on January 8, 2008, and a disposition hearing was set for February 4, 2008, and actually held on February 20.^[1] A disposition report was submitted by the Alameda County Probation Department, which recommended that appellant be declared a ward of the court and placed on supervised probation for six months, while he continued to live in the home of his mother.

At the dispositional hearing, the court placed appellant on probation without wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code,  725, subd. (a)), and ordered him to pay a restitution fine of $25. At that time the court also set the terms of probation.

We have reviewed the entire record, and have concluded the jurisdictional finding was supported by substantial evidence. 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, 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.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] All further dates are in 2008 except where otherwise indicated.