In re D.M.
Filed 12/28/12 In
re D.M. CA1/3
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 THREE
In re D.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
D.M.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
A135638
(Del Norte County
Super. Ct. No.
JDSQ10-6177)
Minor,
D.M., appeals from an order continuing him as a ward of the
a substance abuse assessment and directing him to participate in juvenile drug
court due to his violation of the terms of his probation. His court-appointed
counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent
review of the record pursuant to
issues on appeal. Based upon our
independent review, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In January 2011, D.M. was declared a ward of the juvenile
court and placed on formal probation due to his public intoxication and driving
a vehicle without a valid driver’s license.
(Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f); Veh. Code, § 12500.) Among the conditions of his probation, D.M.
was required to abstain from alcohol and illicit drugs and submit to testing
when requested to do so by a law enforcement official.
In August 2011, the court modified D.M.’s placement after
a supplemental petition was proven true that alleged he engaged in reckless
driving (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a)), reckless driving evading a
peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2), restricting, obstructing or delaying
a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148), and driving without a license (Veh.
Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). Two
allegations that D.M. violated probation by using alcohol were dismissed. The court continued D.M. as a ward on formal
probation and ordered him to complete 25 hours of community work service and
write an essay on the dangers of high speed vehicle pursuits. In September 2011, the court clarified that
the disposition of the August charges also concluded the period of time when
D.M. was subject to house arrest while the charges were pending. In February 2012, D.M. was ordered to a brief
period of confinement in juvenile hall after it was found he again had consumed
alcohol. All the court’s other orders
remained in effect.
Two more petitions to modify the juvenile court’s
dispositional orders were filed in April and May 2012, again alleging that D.M.
had tested positive for alcohol or methamphetamine. After receiving evidence in two contested
hearings, the juvenile court concluded that D.M. violated his probation. Testing done on urine samples obtained on
March 16 and April 16 showed D.M. had consumed alcohol, and testing on a sample
obtained on April 6 showed he had consumed alcohol and methamphetamine. On May 24, 2012, the court continued D.M.’s wardship, ordered
him to undergo a substance abuse assessment and directed him to participate in
juvenile drug court. His appeal from the
May 24th order is timely.
DISCUSSION
The
evidence offered to prove the violations leading to the May 24th order consisted
of testimony from the probation officers who obtained urine samples from D.M.,
and the toxicologist and certifying scientist from the laboratory that
performed the substance tests. D.M.’s
counsel objected to the toxicologist’s testimony on the grounds that the
testimony was without foundation and was admitted in violation of his right to
confront witnesses secured under the
States Constitution.
The
foundational objections were properly overruled. The witness established that he was familiar
with the procedures employed by the testing laboratory, that records showed
that D.M.’s samples were received intact, that the sample testing was done in
accordance with laboratory standards, and that he would not have approved the
test results if there had been any discrepancies in the processes. This is the kind of testimony that has long
been held sufficiently reliable in probation revocation proceedings. (People
v. Brown (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 452.)
D.M.’s constitutional objection based upon an unspecified right to
confront witnesses was also properly overruled.
The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment does not apply in
probation revocation proceedings. (
1, 20.)
D.M. was properly
represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and our review of the
record discloses no error. Counsel has
represented that she advised D.M. of her intention to file a
has the right to submit a supplemental written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so.
The order is affirmed.
_________________________
Siggins,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
McGuiness, P.J.
_________________________
Pollak, J.
