In re R.H.

In re R.H.

Filed 11/5/08 In re R.H. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re R.H. a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	F055220 (Super. Ct. No. JJD058350) O P I N I O N
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.H., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge.

Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

On six separate occasions between August 29, 2006, and September 13, 2006, appellant, R.H., and three other people entered the Target store in Visalia and took merchandise without paying for it.

On September 15, 2006, R.H was arrested after a search of his residence uncovered several items that were stolen from the Target store.

On February 15, 2007, the district attorney filed a petition charging R.H. with five counts of second degree burglary.

On November 1, 2007, R.H. admitted one count of second degree burglary in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts.

At R.H.s disposition hearing on February 19, 2008, the court discussed whether to place R.H. in the local boot camp program. The court eventually continued the hearing to give R.H. the opportunity to avoid being placed in the boot camp program if he showed the court he would attend school.

On March 4, 2008, the court continued the disposition hearing to allow the probation department to get R.H.s school records.

On March 11, 2008, after the probation department provided the court with school records showing R.H. had been tardy to school several times and had one unexcused absence, the court committed R.H. to the boot camp program.

R.H.s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) R.H. has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.

Following independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^*Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.