>In re Isaac
D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 7/25/13  In re Isaac D. CA5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                 

NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

 
>

In re ISAAC D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,                         v. ISAAC D.,   Defendant and Appellant.	F066328   (Super. Ct. No. JJD065870)   >OPINION

>THE COURThref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

            APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Tulare
County.  Juliet L. Boccone, Judge.

            Robert
McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

            Office of the State Attorney
General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo>-

            Appellant,
Isaac D., a minor, appeals from a November 21, 2012,href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">^[1] disposition order, following his admissions
and no contest plea to allegations he violated his probation.

            Appellant’s appointed appellate
counsel has filed an opening brief
which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no
issues, and asks that this court independently
review the record.  (>People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.)  Appellant has not responded to
this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.  We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Procedural Background

On January 3, appellant admitted
allegations set forth in a juvenile wardship petition that he committed href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">second degree burglary (Pen. Code,href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">^[2] §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), a felony, and
misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)). 
On February 21, the juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the
court, placed him on probation, and ordered him committed to the Tulare County
Youth Treatment Program (Youth Treatment Program) for a period of 45 to 180
days.  

On April 17, appellant admitted
allegations, set forth in a second wardship petition, that he committed assault
by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)),
a felony, and resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148,
subd. (a)(1)), a misdemeanor.  On May 4,
the court continued appellant as a ward of the court, continued him on
probation, and ordered him committed to the Youth Treatment Program for a
period of 45 to 90 days. 

On September 26, a notice of
violation of probation (VOP notice) was filed in which it was alleged that
appellant violated his probation by failing to attend school regularly, obey
school rules, and abstain from the use of alcohol, and by violating curfew and
absconding.  On November 6, a second VOP
notice was filed in which it was alleged appellant violated his probation by
committing a violation of section 148. 

On November 7, appellant admitted
the allegations of the September 26 VOP notice and pleaded no contest to the
allegation of the November 6 VOP notice. 
On November 19, a third wardship petition was filed in which it was
alleged that appellant committed a violation of section 148, subdivision
(a)(1). 

On November 21, the court dismissed
the November 19 petition, continued appellant as a ward of the court, ordered
him committed to the Tulare County Youth Facility Program for a period of up to
12 months and set appellant’s maximum term of confinement at five years four
months, less 276 days credit for time served. 
On November 26, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the November 21
disposition order. 

Factual Backgroundhref="#_ftn4"
name="_ftnref4" title="">^[3]> 

            Appellant’s
mother reported the following to the probation officer:  At 1:00 a.m. on September 23, appellant was
arrested “regarding a curfew violation and resisting arrest.”  He was released to his mother’s custody, and
when she took him to a friend’s residence to “obtain some belongings,” he “fled
from the vehicle.”  He “has not returned”
and “his whereabouts were unknown.”  In
addition, appellant “had failed to attend school, [and] obey [his mother’s]
directives ....”

            According
to Tulare County District Attorney’s Office records, “on or about November 2,
2012, [appellant] resisted, obstructed and delayed Officer M. Lightfoot in
violation of Penal Code Section 148(a).” 


DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the
record, we have concluded that no reasonably href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.