>In re Larry
J.













Filed 6/20/12 In re Larry J. 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 LARRY J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY J., Defendant and Appellant.	F063124 (Super. Ct. No. 06CEJ600907-1V4) >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">Fresno
County. Ralph L. Putnam, Judge.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">^†

Thea
Greenhalgh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

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

>

>-ooOoo-

In July
2007, appellant, Larry J., a minor, was adjudged a ward of the court, based on
adjudications of committing a lewd or lascivious act against a minor (Pen.
Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and committing a lewd or lascivious act against a
minor by force (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)). The court placed appellant on probation. Thereafter, on two occasions in 2007 and one
occasion in 2008, appellant was found to be in violation of probation. In each instance he was continued on
probation.

On April
23, 2010, a juvenile wardship petition
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) was filed in which it was alleged appellant
committed sodomy by force (Pen. Code, § 286, subd. (c)(2); count 1) and
forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2); count 2). On April 19, 2011, appellant admitted count 1
as a probation violation and the court dismissed the petition. At the disposition hearing, on August 3,
2011, the court ordered appellant committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of
Juvenile Justice, and set appellant’s maximum period of physical confinement at
eight years, with credit of 923 days for time served. On August 30, 2011, appellant filed a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">notice of appeal from the August 3,
2011, judgment.

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.

FACTShref="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">^[1]

The report of the probation officer states that
according to a police report, on April 21, 2010, a police officer
responding to a report of a sexual assault at a group home for juvenile sex
offenders made contact with the victim who stated the following: On April 8, 2010, at approximately 4:30 a.m.,
appellant awakened the victim and told him to get out of bed. The victim, who was afraid of appellant,
complied. Appellant then “pushed [the
victim] up against the doorway and ... sodomized him against his will.” In addition, “between the middle of March
2010 ... and April 8, 2010, [appellant] forced the victim to perform
approximately six sexual acts against [the victim’s] will.”

Appellant
was 16 years old at the time of the disposition hearing.

DISCUSSION

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

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.