A.
Filed 2/1/13 In re Adrian A. CA5
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
ADRIAN A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ADRIAN A.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F064690
(Super.
Ct. No. JJD064973)
THE COURT
name="_ftnref1" title="">*
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugo J. Loza, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI,
§ 21.)
Robert J.
McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of
the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Appellant appeals from a judgment
entered after he admitted allegations that he violated his probation. Following independent review of the record
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the
early morning hours of July 13, 2011, appellant and four other males were
involved in the burglary of one vehicle and the attempted burglary of two
others. Appellant was arrested that
night in possession of a wallet that was taken from the vehicle that had been
burglarized. He also possessed six
broken spark plug pieces. Appellant
initially provided the arresting police officer with a false name and two false
dates of birth.
On July 14, 2011, the district
attorney filed a petition charging appellant with second degree burglary (count
1/Pen. Code, § 459)
title="">[1],
receiving stolen property (count 4/§ 496, subd. (a)), possession of
burglary tools (count 5/§ 466), providing false information to a police officer
(count 6/§ 148.9, subd. (a)), and two counts of attempted second degree
burglary (counts 2 & 3/§§ 664 & 459).
On August 15, 2011, the court found
all of the allegations true.
On August 29, 2011, the court set
appellant’s maximum term of confinement at 10 years and placed him on probation
on certain terms and conditions, including that he complete a term of 45 to 180
days in the Youth Treatment Center.
On October 25, 2011, appellant was
released from the residential portion of the Youth Treatment Center.
On November 17, 2011, the probation
department contacted Lovell High School and was informed that appellant was
beginning to argue with teachers and act out in class. The school also reported that during a search
of appellant, marijuana was found on him which he claimed he was holding for a
friend. Appellant was subsequently
placed back in the Youth Treatment Center Aftercare Program for 18 days.
On January 12, 2012, appellant was
sent to the office at school for attempting to use his cell phone in
class.
On January 19, 2012, appellant was
given a referral for failing to abide by school rules, talking back and arguing
with his teacher, and using profanity.
On January 20, 2012, appellant was
expelled from school due to continued aggressive and poor behavior. He was subsequently transferred to the Yettem
Community Day School.
On February 7, 2012, appellant’s
school reported to the probation department that the previous day appellant was
argumentative and refused to complete his work.
On February 14, 2012, appellant
took the keys to his mother’s car without permission and picked up some
friends. He was out driving around after
his curfew when Tulare County Sheriff’s deputies attempted to stop him. Appellant fled and ran three stop signs. After crashing his car, appellant was
arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.
On February 16, 2012, the probation
department filed a Notice of Violation of Probation (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
777) alleging that appellant violated his probation by failing to abide by his
school’s rules and regulations, being in possession of marijuana, and failing
to abide by his court-imposed curfew.
On February 22, 2012, appellant
admitted that he violated his probation by possessing marijuana at school on
November 17, 2011, and by failing to abide by his school’s rules and
regulations.
On March 14, 2012, the court
committed appellant to the Youth Treatment Center Program for a maximum of 180
days.
Appellant’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, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) Appellant has not responded to
this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. However, in the brief filed in this matter,
appellant, through his appellate counsel, asks this court to address whether
the court abused its discretion when it committed him to the Youth Treatment
Center on March 14, 2012.
of disposition,
made by the juvenile court, may be reversed by the appellate court only upon a
showing of an abuse
of discretion.…’ [Citation.]
It is not the responsibility of this court to determine what we believe
would be the most appropriate placement for a minor. This is the duty of the trial court, whose
determination we reverse only if it has acted beyond the scope of reason. [Citation.]â€
(In re Khamphouy S. (1993) 12
Cal.App.4th 1130, 1135.)
In addition to the offenses in the
instant petition, appellant had prior adjudications for first degree burglary,
second degree burglary, receiving stolen property, and petty theft that were
charged in a petition filed on September 30, 2010, and an adjudication for
grand theft that was charged in a petition filed on October 13, 2010. Appellant also had one prior violation of
probation, he served three commitments to the Youth Treatment Center and its
aftercare program, and he had spent a total of 467 days in custody. Given the extent of appellant’s criminal
behavior, the court acted reasonably and did not abuse its discretion when it determined
that another commitment to the Youth Treatment Center was appropriate.
Further,
following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably
arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Detjen, J.
Code, unless otherwise indicated.
