In re Johnny S.
Filed 6/13/08 In re Johnny S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re JOHNNY S., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHNNY S., Defendant and Appellant. | F053832 (Super. Ct. No. JJD061933) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugo J. Loza, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.)
Kelly Babineau, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
On April 25, 2007, the Tulare County juvenile court accepted transfer of the wardship of appellant, Johnny S., from a wardship in Sutter County to one in Tulare County. A petition alleging that Johnny committed felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a))[1]was found true in Sutter County on February 16, 2006. On May 21, 2007, the juvenile court conducted a review hearing regarding Johnnys case plan.
The court took judicial notice of Johnnys file. The court placed Johnny under the supervision of the probation officer, not to be removed from the custody of his parents. Among the many conditions of probation were that Johnny was to obey all laws, his parents, and school officials. Johnny was to contact the probation department and be enrolled in school. The court further ordered Johnny to enroll in substance abuse counseling and not use or possess alcohol or controlled substances unless he has a prescription.
On June 26, 2007, Johnny was charged in a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 with misdemeanor obstruction of a peace officer (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)). On July 5, 2007, Johnny waived his right to a contested hearing and other constitutional rights. Johnny admitted the allegation and a factual basis for his admission.
The probation officers report noted that on June 23, 2007, officers in Visalia were asked by the Porterville Police Department to check an apartment in Visalia for a missing person, Johnny S. When officers arrived to the location, they found a male juvenile, Johnny, who matched the missing persons description. When trying to handcuff Johnny, Johnny began to pull away and stated that the officers were not going to handcuff him. The officer restrained Johnny and arrested him. Johnny did not give officers his correct last name.
Johnny admitted a serious substance abuse problem to the probation officer. He admitted using alcohol, marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, ecstasy, acid, and mushrooms. Johnny began using these substances at age nine. Johnny was 14 at the time the probation report was prepared. The probation officer considered several different placements, but concluded Johnny should be placed in the Tulare County Probation Youth Facility (Youth Facility).
At the disposition hearing on July 27, 2007, the juvenile court found that Johnny had one of the most serious drug problems the court had ever seen. The court found that Johnny needed structure and discipline. The court further found Johnny needed to be back in school. The court followed the recommendation of the probation report. The court found Johnny a ward of the court and ordered his placement in the Youth Facility program, noting that he failed to reform on a previous placement on probation. The court found Johnnys maximum term of confinement in the Youth Facility was 365 days.
Johnnys appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Johnny was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on February 13, 2008, we invited Johnny to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
