In re N.H
Filed 12/27/12 In
re N.H. CA1/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 N.H., a
Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
N.H.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
A135976
(Solano County
Super. Ct. No. J39425)
Appellant, then age 17 (but now 18
a juvenile with an extensive history of charging petitions and resulting orders
since he was 14, was charged in May 2012 with violating his probation by
failing to obey all laws. After a
contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile
court concluded that he should be placed in confinement with the New
Foundations program. Pursuant to
appeals and asks this court to determine if there are any issues deserving of
further briefing. We have done so, find
none, and hence affirm the juvenile court’s order.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 5, 2012,
title="">[2] appellant was detained by
a Vallejo police officer after the officer saw him and another person, James
Johnson, in a car begin acting suspiciously when they saw the police car. When the officer turned his car around to
check the license plate of the vehicle appellant was in, that car increased its
speed and went through a red light. A
short time later, with the vehicle still moving, both Johnson and appellant
jumped from the car and tried to flee.
The officer pursued appellant on foot, ordering him several times to
stop; appellant disregarded those commands.
Appellant continued to disregard the officer’s orders even after the
officer drew a gun. The officer was
finally able to wrestle him to the ground.
Appellant claimed that, after Johnson had jumped from the car, he also
jumped, after he noticed the car had no keys in the ignition. He later acknowledged that he knew Johnson
did not have a driver’s license. The
officer arrested appellant and took him to juvenile hall.
Two days later, on May 7, the
County District Attorney filed a one-count petition pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), charging appellant with
misdemeanor resisting arrest. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) At a hearing held on May 9, the prosecutor
moved to amend the petition by added a count charging appellant with violating
his probation for his “failure to obey all laws.†After appellant admitted violating probation,
the court dismissed the resisting arrest count.
On May 30, the juvenile court held a
contested dispositional hearing. At that
hearing, the prosecution first submitted the matter based on the probation
officer’s report. The defense then
called appellant to testify; he asserted that, although his probation officer
had told him he had had a positive drug test in March, in fact he did not use
marijuana in February or March, but had in April.
However, appellant’s probation
officer then testified that, during her interview with appellant on May 15, he
confirmed to her that he had resumed smoking marijuana in March and had been
using it once or twice a week since then, albeit “drinking lots of water to
reduce the levels in his tests.†That
officer also told the court that she recommended appellant be placed at New
Foundations because she thought he would benefit from its substance abuse
program and needed an environment different from that at his home (with his
mother and then, after she lost her home, with an aunt).
Based on this testimony and the
probation officer’s report, including appellant’s juvenile offense history, the
court found that placement in the New Foundations program for substance abuse
counseling and other support was the appropriate remedy. Although the court heard appellant’s mother’s
request that he be allowed to return home, it continued appellant’s wardship,
set his maximum confinement time at seven years and four months, and gave him
total credits of 225 days.
Appellant filed a timely
As indicated in the foregoing
statement of facts and the proceedings in the juvenile court, appellant has had
an extensive history before that court.
First of all, and although not directly related to that history, both of
his parents have a criminal history.
They are separated and appellant had been living with his mother and
older brother until his mother lost her home at the end of January 2012, when
he commenced living with an aunt until his early May detention. The mother had admitted to having alcohol
problems, which have resulted in at least one report to Child Protective
Services, and a court order that she undergo treatment. Appellant’s mother was also reported by the
probation department as having been uncooperative regarding appellant’s
drug-related problems and his compliance with other, prior, probation
conditions.
Appellant’s juvenile record started
in August 2009, when he admitted to one felony count of car theft, one
misdemeanor count of unlicensed driving, and one felony count of receiving
stolen property. (Veh. Code
§§ 10851, subd. (a); 12500, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 496d, subd.
(a).) The juvenile court granted
appellant deferred entry of judgment on these charges. However, on November 13, 2009, that court
terminated the deferred entry of judgment and imposed a formal wardship, after
appellant admitted a misdemeanor count of grand theft, and stipulated to the
wardship.
On April 1, 2010, appellant admitted
a misdemeanor battery violation (Pen. Code, § 242) and a violation of his
existing probation for failure to attend the mandated counseling. The juvenile court then continued his
wardship and probation, ordered him to attend drug and alcohol counseling, and
to undergo drug testing as conditions of his continued probation.
However, appellant was returned to
the juvenile court in December 2010, and admitted to one count of felony first
degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code,
§ 459.) As a result of this
admission, appellant was placed in the New Foundations program for four months,
a program which was to be followed by an after-care program involving drug
counseling and testing. His mother, with
whom he was then living, was also ordered into substance abuse treatment. Appellant then recorded several negative drug
tests, after which he was moved into a lower level of supervision. However, a relapse resulted, and in January
2012, appellant admitted to violating his probation by using marijuana. As a result, his probation was continued but
he was ordered to again undergo substance abuse counseling, treatment, and
frequent drug testing.
Later in 2012, appellant secured
several negative test results, but then a positive test result in April. When confronted with this result, and as
noted above, appellant admitted to his probation officer (the one who testified
at his dispositional hearing) that he had started to use marijuana in March,
and had continued to use it once or twice a week since then.
In view of appellant’s extensive
history of drug-related problems, his current age, his repeated failure to
adhere to terms and conditions of his probation, and other related problems
recited above, the juvenile court clearly did not err in its dispositional
order. We thus find no need for further
briefing.
IV. DISPOSITION
The disposition is authorized by law and, in the circumstances, does
not constitute an abuse of discretion by the juvenile court. (In re Jonathan
T. (2008) 166
Cal.App.4th 474,
484-485.) Our independent review having
revealed no arguable issues that require further briefing, the judgment, which
includes the disposition, is affirmed.
_________________________
Haerle,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Lambden, J.
Albeit still subject to juvenile court jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code sections 602, subdivision (a), and 607.
Unless otherwise noted, all further dates are in 2012.
