In re Joseph L.
Filed 9/25/07 In re Joseph L. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
In re JOSEPH L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH L., Defendant and Appellant. | A115479 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. J189659) |
Joseph L., born September 1989, appeals an order of the juvenile court declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) and ordering his out-of-home placement after the court found he had committed sodomy (Pen. Code, 286, subd. (c)) and a lewd act on a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) His counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has informed his client in writing that a Wende brief was being filed and that defendant had the right to personally file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. No supplemental brief has been filed.
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2006, the subject section 602 petition was filed alleging then 16-year-old defendants commission of a March 19 act of sodomy. On July 11, the petition was amended to allege defendants March 19 commission of a lewd act on a child under 14 years old. Defendant was placed at juvenile hall on April 9.
In June 2006, during the pretrial stage, defendant moved to substitute counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden(1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, on the ground that counsels representation was deficient. The trial court properly denied the motion after questioning defendant, defendants mother and uncle and defense counsel. In July, the section 602 petition was amended to allege the lewd conduct charge. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) Thereafter, defendant retained private counsel.
Jurisdictional Hearing
At the August 15, 2006 jurisdictional hearing, M.S., the victims mother, testified that since 2000, defendants mother, Alicia J., (also referred to as Lisa), provided child care for the victim and her sister in Lisas home. About once a month, the children stayed overnight at Lisas home, where defendant resided. The children slept either in defendants mothers bed, on the couch, or in defendants bed. The victim (age 10) and her younger sister (age 4) spent the March 19, 2006 weekend at Lisas home. In April the victim told M. that when she spent the night at defendant and Lisas home, defendant took his private part and rubbed it in-between her butt. The victim said the conduct last occurred during the March 19 weekend. The mother took the children to the hospital and they were interviewed at CALICO.
The victim testified that when she spent the night at Lisas home, defendant would touch her bottom with his private part. On the March 19, 2006 weekend, she awoke to find herself on her knees and defendant on top of her. He held her down as she tried to push him away. He also put his private part inside her bottom.
Alicia J. testified that the victim had lied to her on many occasions. Once the victim stole Alicias watch and once stole candy from Wal-Mart. Alicia said that defendant did not sleep at home the night of March 19 and was only at the house that day for 5 or 10 minutes. She said on the weekends defendant stayed at either his fathers or his uncles home. She also said when she and M. confronted defendant about the incident, he denied touching the victim.
Defendants uncle, Ronald J., testified he had been incarcerated several times as an adult for bank robbery. He said that defendant spent the entire night of March 19, 2006 at J. house and they watched X-rated movies. J. also said that the victim had problems with school and he had tried to counsel her.
Defendant testified he had known the victim for 6 or 7 years and they were like siblings. He denied sleeping at his mothers house on the night of the March 19, 2006 incident, and denied ever engaging in sexual conduct with the victim.. He said the victim would lie about school and mentioned the two instances of stealing testified to by Alicia.
At the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the court exercised its discretion to find the victim very credible, found the allegations of both offenses true and referred defendant for a mental health evaluation.
The probation departments dispositional report noted that defendant was placed on probation in March 2004 after committing theft from a person (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (c)). The report recommended that given defendants failure on probation, he should be placed in a suitable family home or group home under standard out-of-home probation conditions. At the dispositional hearing, defendants counsel stated with defendants consent, she was submitting on the report. The court stated it was following the probation departments out-of-home placement recommendations and conditions including sex offender treatment. Defendant was properly given 165 days credit for time served and ordered to pay a $100 restitution fine.
Defendant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, and appeared at every hearing. We conclude there are no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
_________________________
SIMONS, Acting P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
GEMELLO, J.
_________________________
NEEDHAM, J.
(A115479)
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
