Filed 8/8/17 P. v. M.T. CA4/3





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


In re M.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.


G054143

(Super. Ct. No. 16DL0720)

O P I N I O N
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
1. Introduction
M.T. (the Minor) filed a notice of appeal from the juvenile court’s order declaring the Minor a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placing him on probation under the terms of a disposition agreement. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. The Minor was granted 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf, but did not file anything.
We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief and have found no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.) We therefore affirm.
2. Procedural History and Facts
A petition to declare the Minor a ward of the court, filed in April 2016, alleged four counts: Count 1—violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (felony unlawful taking of a vehicle); Count 2—violation of Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a) (misdemeanor hit and run with property damage); Count 3—violation of Penal Code section 148.5, subdivision (a) (misdemeanor falsely reporting a crime); and Count 4—violation of Vehicle Code section 12500, subdivision (a) (misdemeanor driving a motor vehicle without a license). At his initial appearance, the Minor denied the allegations.
On September 22, 2016, the Minor’s counsel informed the court that the Minor was prepared to change his plea to counts 1, 2, and 4. Counsel raised an objection to the court’s indicated disposition and asserted the maximum confinement exposure for count 2 was limited by Penal Code section 654 (Section 654). A lengthy discussion ensued. The parties returned to court on September 27. The Minor changed his plea and admitted the offenses charged in counts 1, 2, and 4.
On the Advisement of Constitutional Rights form, the Minor offered the following facts as the basis of his admissions: “On or about 10-11-2015, in Orange County, CA, I willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully drove and took a 2010 Toyota Prius not my own without the owner’s consent and with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of possession. While driving that vehicle on the same date, in Orange County, CA, I crashed into another vehicle causing property damage to that vehicle, and willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully failed to immediately stop and exchange identifying information with the victim as required by law. Finally, on the same date, in Orange County, CA, I willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully drove that vehicle on a public highway without a valid California driver’s license.” At the hearing on September 27, 2016, the Minor orally admitted those same facts as the basis for his admissions.
The juvenile court found that the Minor “intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily” waived his constitutional rights and found a factual basis for the Minor’s admissions. The court dismissed count 3 of the wardship petition, found the allegations of counts 1, 2, and 4 to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, and reduced count 1 to a misdemeanor. The court declared the Minor a ward of the Orange County Juvenile Court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placed him on probation with no confinement in a juvenile institution or jail. The court found that under Section 654 the Minor could not be punished on count 4.
The juvenile court addressed the argument by the Minor’s counsel that under Section 654 the Minor could not be punished on both counts 1 and 2. The court found, based on the factual basis for the admission, that the offenses alleged in counts 1 and 2 were part of a divisible course of conduct. The court concluded that Minor’s intent and objective in engaging in hit and run driving with property damage (count 2) was different from and formed after the intent and objective in taking the vehicle (count 1). Because Section 654 did not apply, the court determined the maximum confinement exposure on counts 1 and 2 was one year two months.
3. Analysis
We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and we find no arguable issues on appeal. The Minor himself has not raised any issues for our review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120, 124.) To assist in our review, counsel has suggested this issue: “Did the Trial Court Abuse Its Discretion or Improperly Fail to Apply Penal Code Section 654 in Its Determination of the Maximum Confinement Exposure?”
The suggested issue has no merit. Section 654, subdivision (a) provides that “[a]n act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” Section 654 applies to an indivisible course of criminal conduct that violated more than one statute. (People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507.) “‘“Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.”’” (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 885.) Intent and objective are factual questions for the trial court, which must find evidence to support the existence of a separate intent and objective for each sentenced offense. (Id. at pp. 885 886.)
Here, the juvenile court did not err by finding the Minor’s intent and objective in taking the vehicle without the owner’s consent (count 1) was separate and different from the Minor’s intent in crashing the vehicle into another vehicle and causing property damage to that vehicle (count 2). The Minor’s course of conduct that was the subject of the wardship petition was divisible between taking the car and crashing the car. The factual basis for the Minor’s admissions supported the trial court’s finding.
4. Disposition
The dispositional order is affirmed.



FYBEL, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:



IKOLA, J.



THOMPSON, J.