In re Ulises G.
Filed 6/5/08 In re Ulises G. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re ULISES G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B203514 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TJ16683) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ULISES G., Defendant and Appellant. |
THE COURT:*
Ulises G. (appellant), age 15, admitted that he fell within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that on May 6, 2007, he had violated Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1), a misdemeanor, proscribing resisting, obstructing a peace officer or E.M.T. discharging the duty of his office.[1] In an agreement with the People, upon appellants admission, the allegation of a violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f), was dismissed, and appellant was placed on six months of probation pursuant to section 725, subdivision (a), without a declaration of wardship.
The juvenile court took appellants waiver of constitutional rights and admission and sustained the petition as to the count 1 allegation of resisting a police officer. It ordered that appellant was a person described by section 602. Pursuant to the admission agreement, it said that it was not ordering wardship. It then vacated the finding that the minor was a person described in section 602. Pursuant to the admission agreement and section 725, subdivision (a), the juvenile court ordered that appellant was to be placed home on probation on stated conditions for a period of six months.[2]
We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
After examination of the record, appellate counsel filed an Opening Brief in which she asked for an independent review of the record.
On April 25, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The orders under review are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Section 725, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part, as follows: If the court has found that the minor is a person described by Section 601 or 602, by reason of the commission of an offense other than any of the offenses set forth in Section 654.3, it may, without adjudging the minor a ward of the court, place the minor on probation, under the supervision of the probation officer, for a period not to exceed six months. The minors probation shall include the conditions required in Section 729.2 except in any case in which the court makes a finding and states on the record its reasons that any of those conditions would be inappropriate.
