In re James G.
Filed 11/26/07 In re James G. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
In re JAMES G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES G., Defendant and Appellant. | G038686 (Super. Ct. No. DL024970) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Joy W. Markman, Judge. Affirmed.
Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
We appointed counsel to represent James G., on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. James was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him. We have examined the record and found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
FACTS
James had been previously declared a ward of the court and was before the juvenile court on numerous allegations that he had violated his probation. At the probation violation hearing, James was represented by counsel, and the juvenile court considered and accepted the detention report into evidence. James was advised of and waived his rights to trial, and he admitted all probation violation allegations. The juvenile court found all allegations to be true. Pursuant to a plea agreement, James was ordered into an appropriate juvenile facility for 240 days with a recommendation for a treatment program.
DISCUSSION
To assist this court in its review, counsel indicated she had considered two issues in preparing her brief: Was Jamess Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated when the probation officer interviewed him at juvenile hall in the absence of his counsel; and, if such a violation occurred, was any error forfeited when James waived his trial rights and admitted the probation violation allegations.
It is well-established that the essentials of due process and fair treatment[] apply to a juvenile delinquency adjudication. (In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1, 30.) We note though, there is nothing in the record to suggest James suffered prejudice because his counsel was not present during his probation interview. We find no basis to infer Jamess admission of the probation violations was prompted by or in any way encouraged by his interview with the probation department. The record is clear that James freely and voluntarily admitted the probation violation allegations in reliance on the juvenile courts indicated sentence of 240 days and a referral to a treatment program. We need not decide if it was error for James to be interviewed by a probation officer without his counsel being present, because if it was error, it was harmless.
Finally, because we conclude the issue is without merit, we need not address the issue of waiver.
DISPOSITON
The judgment is affirmed.
OLEARY, J.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
BEDSWORTH, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
