In re Michael B.
Filed 5/27/08 In re Michael B. CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re MICHAEL B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL B., Defendant and Appellant. | A119013 (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. JDSQ 04-6143) |
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant Michael B. appeals from the Del Norte County Juvenile Courts dispositional order of August 30, 2007, which declared appellant a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1]and placed him on probation, to be served at home, with a variety of conditions. Pursuant to People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, appellant asks this court to review the record in the court below and determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing and then consideration by this court. We have examined that record, find no such issues, and hence affirm the order appealed from.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
During the three and a half years commencing April 27, 2004, and concluding with a petition filed on August 9, 2007, the disposition of which is before us now, the record reveals no less than 10 separate juvenile petitions (including supplemental and amended petitions) were filed in the Del Norte County court against appellant. We will not recite the allegations of each one but, in general, they alleged a range of offenses, including burglary, unlawful entry of a dwelling and petty theft (see Pen. Code, 459, 488 & 484), violation of probation by testing positive for marijuana, contempt of court for failing to appear (Pen. Code, 166, subd. (a)(4), miscellaneous other probation violations, and testing positive for both marijuana and amphetamines, charged as both a violation of probation and as a separate offense. ( 777.)
On June 14, 2007,[2]a dispositional order was entered again placing appellant, then 17 years old on probation, but not declaring him a ward of the court. One of several probation conditions imposed was that appellant provide any peace officer with blood, breath and urine samples upon request.
On July 16, one of the several petitions noted above was filed alleging that appellant had, again, violated, Penal Code section 166, subdivision (a)(4) by testing positive for marijuana on the date of the immediately preceding dispositional order, i.e., June 14.
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on July 16 and August 7; at both hearings, appellant was represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the second hearing on August 7, the jurisdictional allegation was sustained. Further, appellant was ordered to provide a urine sample to the probation department that same day.
Two days later, the final of the many relevant juvenile petitions was filed, this time asking that appellant be declared a ward of the court, and alleging that, on August 7, he had failed to provide a urine sample as required by the court order of that day.
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on August 14; appellant was represented by the same counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court again found the allegations to be true.
As noted earlier, on August 30 a dispositional hearing was held wherein appellant was declared a ward of the court and placed on probation to be served at home and with a variety of probation conditions.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal the following day.
III. DISCUSSION
As noted, appellant was represented by defense counsel at the relevant hearings in August 2007. That counsel did an able job of cross-examining the probation officer and juvenile court clerk regarding appellants unsuccessful attempts (at least according to appellants theory of the matter) to provide urine samples. He then argued to the court, specifically at the conclusion of the August 14 hearing, that appellant was ill on one of the occasions regarding which it was charged that he deliberately failed to provide a urine sample, and that his client had attempted to show up on a multitude of occasions.
Appellant clearly had the benefit of adequate representation during the course of what turned out to be a very lengthy procedural process.
The trial court conducted many hearings starting in April 2004 and continuing until August 2007. At many of them, the court heard testimony from, e.g., probation officers regarding appellants compliance (or lack thereof) with the courts prior orders, juvenile court clerks on the same subject, and even toxicology specialists on the results of the tests that were conducted on appellants urine, etc. In none of those hearings do we find any suggestion that the court did not follow appropriate procedures, nor imposed conditions of probation on appellant that were at all inappropriate or unduly burdensome.
In short, we find no evidence of error by the court or questionable conduct on the part of either the juvenile probation authorities or the prosecution. Accordingly, we determine that there are no issues requiring further briefing.
IV. DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed.
_________________________
Haerle, Acting P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Lambden, J.
_________________________
Richman, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise noted.
