In re A.O.
Filed 4/17/13 In re A.O. CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 A.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.O., Defendant and Appellant. | A137405 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1201504) |
A.O.
appealed from a dispositional order committing him to the California
Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).
His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record
to determine whether there are any arguable
issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find no arguable issues and affirm.
A
juvenile wardship petition filed on August 14,
2012, in
County alleged that the then 17-year-old minor had committed two counts of
forcible lewd acts on an eight-year-old boy with whom he shared a bedroom
during summer vacation (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)). The People sought to prosecute A.O. as an
adult. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 707, subd. (b).) The
juvenile court sustained the first count and dismissed the second count, and
the People withdrew their motion to prosecute the minor as an adult after he
admitted the allegations of count one under a
Costa County,
where A.O. lived, for disposition.
Following
a contested dispositional hearing on December 3,
2012, the juvenile court adjudged A.O. a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) After considering less restrictive
placements, the court committed him to DJF, finding that he was a danger and a
predator requiring a locked facility, and that the “excellent sexual offender
treatment program†at DJF would be helpful to A.O. The maximum term of confinement was
calculated at 10 years, with nine years, seven months remaining because of
custody credit. The court also ordered
A.O. to pay restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined, and
informed A.O. that he was required to register as a sex offender.
No
error appears in the decision to commit A.O. to DJF, and the commitment was not
an abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (a)(4) [court may
commit ward to DJF if he has violated Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)];
Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147 [decision to commit minor to DJF may be reversed only
upon showing of abuse of discretion].)
Appointed counsel represented A.O. throughout the proceedings. The trial court advised A.O. of the rights he
waived and the consequences of admitting to the single count that was
sustained. There are no
appeal.
The
dispositional order is affirmed.
_________________________
Humes,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
