In re B.G.

Filed 12/19/08 In re B.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

B.G. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court and committing him to placement in a court-approved home or institution. His counsel raises no issues and asks 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.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

On April 17, 2008, defendant waived his right to a jurisdictional hearing and admitted that he gave false information to a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 148.9, subdivision (a). The charge stemmed from an incident in which defendant and C.J. fled from police after being observed loitering on Cutting Boulevard. The police suspected that both defendant and C.J. were armed. C.J. was apprehended and found in possession of a submachine gun. Defendant continued to run and was found hiding in the carport area of 542 S. 29th Street. The police found a loaded handgun in the yard of 531 S. 30th Street where defendant had earlier jumped the fence into the backyard. Upon his arrest, defendant gave a false name and birthdate.

Defendant had previously been adjudged a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300 because his legal guardian could no longer care for him due to his substance abuse and aggressive behavior. Thus, after the court sustained the allegations of the section 602 petition, it ordered a section 241.1 hearing.[2] The dual jurisdiction conference was held on April 21, 2008.

The disposition hearing was held on May 15, 2008. The court set aside the section 300 dependency and adjudged defendant a ward of the court. The court ordered that the probation officer take custody of defendant for placement in a court-approved home or institution.

Defendant was represented by counsel. There was no error in the disposition. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

________________________

RIVERA, J.

We concur:

___________________________

REARDON, Acting P. J.

___________________________

SEPULVEDA, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[2] Section 241.1, subdivision (a) states that [w]henever a minor appears to come within the description of both Section 300 and Section 601 or 602, the county probation department and the child welfare services department shall, pursuant to a jointly developed written protocol described in subdivision (b), initially determine which status will serve the best interests of the minor and the protection of society. The recommendations of both departments shall be presented to the juvenile court with the petition that is filed on behalf of the minor, and the court shall determine which status is appropriate for the minor. . . .