In re G.B.

Filed 12/30/08 In re G.B. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

G.B., a minor, appeals from a dispositional order following his admission of violating Penal Code section 211, robbery perpetrated in an inhabited dwelling. The court committed him to the Fouts Springs Youth Facility for a maximum period of nine years. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Defendant has been advised by his counsel that he could file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude there are no arguable issues to brief or argue.

Background[1]

Fourteen-year-old defendant and another juvenile friend T.L., wearing ski masks, forced their way into the victims home. T.L. was armed with a knife. They pushed the first victim into her bedroom and took her wallet. Defendant then entered another room and confronted a woman who hurriedly dialed 911, while she was lying in bed being cared for by her mother. Defendant struggled with the woman with the phone and the two boys fled with the wallet containing money. Police later arrested T.L. who identified G.B. as his accomplice. After police contacted G.B., he was cooperative, gave the police the stolen money, and admitted his involvement in the robbery.

Dispositional Hearing

After advisement of his rights and the consequences of admitting the charge and filling out a waiver of rights form with the assistance of counsel, defendant admitted to a violation of Penal Code section 211 perpetrated in an inhabited dwelling house, first degree robbery.[2] Other allegations were dismissed as part of his plea agreement.

An extensive, contested dispositional hearing was held. Defendant wrote a letter of apology. Relatives and family friends submitted letters on his behalf, attesting to his good character and how the incident was out of character. The three victims in the house submitted written victim impact statements.

Three family friends and an uncle testified on behalf of defendant. The probation officer recommended Fouts Springs Youth Facility, an intensive, restrictive program, generally lasting nine to twelve months as opposed to New Foundations, a four-month, less restrictive program. Victim impact statements were read to the court.

Trial counsel argued for commitment to New Foundations, which was closer to defendants home, pointed out that defendant had never before been found to have committed a crime and had family and community support. The court carefully listened to the arguments concerning the benefits and detriments of the two proposed facilities, noted the seriousness of the crime, and commented on why the defendant needed a high level of intervention.

Disposition

There was no abuse of discretion in the commitment to Fouts Springs Youth Facility. The other orders entered were appropriate for the offense. The order committing defendant to Fouts Springs Youth Facility is affirmed.

______________________

Marchiano, P.J.

We concur:

______________________

Margulies, J.

______________________

Graham, J.*

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] These facts were not contested and are drawn largely from the probation report reviewed by the court.

[2] Pursuant to Penal Code section 212.5, subdivision (a).

* Retired judge of the Marin Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.