In re Grant G.

Filed 11/28/07 In re Grant G. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Douglas N. Gericke, Judge. Affirmed.

Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 21, 2007, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed an original juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), against minor Grant G. The petition alleged that the following felony violations occurred on February 18, 2007: (1) count 1violation of Penal Code section 215, subdivision (a), unlawful taking of a motor vehicle from Stephen P. and from the presence of his passenger; (2) count 2violation of Penal Code section 459, first degree residential burglary of an inhabited dwelling occupied by Doug F.; (3) count 3violation of Penal Code section 211, second degree robbery of Stephen P.; and (4) count 4violation of Penal Code section 211, second degree robbery of Jack F.

On March 6, 2007, at a pretrial hearing, minor waived his constitutional rights and admitted the allegations as to count 2. The juvenile court (1) accepted the waivers as knowingly and voluntarily made and the admissions as free and voluntary, (2) found a factual basis and made true findings thereon, and (3) dismissed counts 1, 3, and 4.

The probation department filed a juvenile report, a juvenile probation case plan, and written placement recommendations. The defense filed a psychological assessment prepared by Marjorie Graham-Howard, Ph.D.

On April 9, 2007, the juvenile court held a contested dispositional hearing. At the hearing, the court indicated that it had read and considered probation department and psychological evaluation reports.

The probation report included interview statements by minor and his parents. The report also addressed minors disciplinary, truancy, and tardiness problems at school, minors alcohol and drug usage, and inadequate parental supervision. Notwithstanding, the report indicated that minor had no prior arrests or juvenile court involvement and even referenced seven character reference letters on minors behalf.

The probation report summarized the versions of the events that transpired on the evening of February 18, 2007, in Big Bear, California, given by minor and the victims. Notwithstanding the differenceswhich do not affect this appealthe following is a summary of what transpired: Minor and three friends participated in (1) hitting and punching the victims, Brian C. and Stephen P.; (2) taking the victims vehicle; and (3) entering the victims cabin by force and stealing items out of the cabin.

In the report, the probation officer stated that a grant of placement was ruled out in this matter due to the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing criminal behavior. Instead, the probation officer stated that a commitment to the California Youth Authority is the most appropriate recommendation at this time.

The psychological assessment prepared by Dr. Graham-Howard found minor to have intelligence in the superior range and to be performing academically at his grade level, but below the level of academic achievement indicated by his measured intelligence level. Minor exhibited higher than normal levels of hostility and situationally-driven anxiety and distress, possibly as a result of his mothers recent suicide attempt and his fathers separate living in a displaced, quasi-homeless situation.

In addition to the review of the two reports summarized above, at the dispositional hearing, the court heard the testimony of Dr. Graham-Howard, minor, and minors probation officer. Their testimonies were consistent with the above-mentioned reports filed in this case.

Thereafter, the juvenile court (1) declared minor a ward; (2) found that count 2 was a felony and involved the use of a motor vehicle, necessitating revocation of minors drivers license under Vehicle Code section 13350; (3) found that the probation departments case plan was appropriate, the reunification plan was reasonable, appropriate, and likely to be successful, and reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need to remove minor from his home or to facilitate minors return to his home; (4) ordered payment of victim restitution and a restitution fine under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 730.6 and 730.7; (5) maintained minor in the custody of the probation officer pending placement in a foster care facility that was the most family-like or the least restrictive; and (6) directed minors parents to participate in a treatment/counseling/education program. The juvenile court chose foster care placement over commitment to the youth authority, despite the recommendation by the probation officer, because of minors personal needs, his lack of [a] prior record, and because minor has a lot of potential and could be successfully handled in a placement facility.

Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.

II

ANALYSIS

After minor appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief; he has not done so.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

McKINSTER

J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.