In re Steven M.

Filed 3/26/08 In re Steven M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant appeals from a judgment of the Alameda County Juvenile Court adjudging him to be a ward of the court and placing him in Camp Wilmont Sweeny. That judgment was entered after jurisdictional and dispositional hearings in which it was found that appellant, then age 17, had committed robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211^[1]and, in the course of which, used a deadly weapon, namely a knife. (See Pen. Code,  12022, subd. (b).) Appellant has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asking this court to examine the record and determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing and consideration by this court. We have examined the record, find no such issues, and hence affirm.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2007, a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed alleging that appellant committed robbery in violation of section 211 and assault with a weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1), and battery resulting in serious bodily injury ( 243, subd. (d)).

The following week, the assault charge was reduced to a misdemeanor charge on motion of the prosecution, and admitted by appellant; the other two charges were dismissed.

On March 28, 2007, a dispositional hearing was held at which appellant was placed on probation without wardship under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a), and placed on home supervision.

Early in the morning of July 23, 2007, appellant approached one Carlos Ochoa at a bus stop in Oakland, took a long knife from his pocket and attempted to attack Ochoa with it. Ochoa jumped back and, as a result, was never stabbed. Appellant then demanded that Ochoa give him his cell phone, which Ochoa did; he also gave appellant some currency, hoping that this would stop appellant from attacking him. Appellant then walked away, meeting a girl with whom he continued to walk. Ochoa watched them until he saw a police patrol car; he shouted at the car, and Ochoa told the officers what had happened, and directed them to appellant, who was still in sight. The officers stopped them and, later, returned Ochoas cell phone to him.

Following his arrest, an officer advised appellant of his Miranda rights and then took a statement from him. Appellant told the officer that he had had a fight with his girlfriend and was upset. He left his house with a knife, saw a person (Ochoa, as it turned out) at a bus stop, walked up to him and demanded his cell phone. The person gave him his cell phone and appellant walked away. When the police arrived, appellant threw away the knife and cell phone. Appellant did not tell the officer that he had either shown the knife to Ochoa or tried to stab him. The officer did ask appellant if a discarded knife the officer had found was his; appellant admitted that it was.

On July 24, 2007, a subsequent Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging that appellant had committed robbery in violation of section 211, with the noted enhancement under section 12022, subdivision (b), also being charged. Notice was specifically given in this petition that, because of the prior admitted misdemeanor assault charge, the court should consider the maximum one-year time of confinement.

On August 14, 2007, a contested jurisdictional hearing was held at which Ochoa and the Oakland police officer who arrested and questioned appellant testified; appellant did not. At the conclusion of that hearing, the court found both the robbery and the enhancement allegations to be true. The court found the maximum period of confinement on the two petitions to be six years and four months.

On August 28, 2007, a dispositional hearing was held at which the court adjudged appellant to be a ward of the court, took custody away from his guardian, and placed him in Camp Wilmont Sweeny, with the normal conditions.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal three days later.

III. DISCUSSION

At both the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, appellant was represented by an Assistant Public Defender who, at the jurisdictional hearing, ably cross-examined witness and victim Ochoa, in the course of which he elicited some inconsistencies between his testimony and the statement he had given the Oakland police officer on the night in question. That counsel also ably cross-examined the police officer who also testified at the jurisdiction hearing on August 14, 2007. Finally, at the dispositional hearing, appellants counsel agreed with the court and the prosecutor that it was appropriate to conduct and conclude that hearing without further delay because, in the words of the court, due to appellants age, if we delay [disposition] much longer, [a juvenile camp such as Camp Wilmont Sweeny] might not be a possibility, i.e., appellant would be past the age of 18. That being the case, neither appellant nor his counsel contested the disposition ordered by the court at that hearing.

Under the circumstances, and particularly in view of appellants priorand admittedjuvenile record and the testimony of Ochoa and the police officer regarding the events of July 23, 2007, we find no issues deserving of further briefing or consideration by this court.

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Haerle, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Lambden, J.

_________________________

Richman, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1]All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.