In re D.A.
Filed 12/15/08 In re D.A. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
In re D.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.A., Defendant and Appellant. | A122475 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J38493) |
Appellant D.A. appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellants counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel declares that appellant has been notified that no issues are being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead is being requested. Appellant has also been advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
On April 18, 2008,[1]a petition was filed seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602, subd. (a)), and alleged one count of disturbing the peace (Pen. Code, 415, subd. (1)),[2]one count of making a criminal threat ( 422), and one count of public intoxication ( 647, subd. (f)). Appellant was ordered to be detained.
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on the petition on June 4, at the conclusion of which the allegation that appellant had committed the crime of disturbing the peace ( 415, subd. (1)) was found true, and the remaining two counts were not sustained by the evidence. The matter was continued to June 18 for a dispositional hearing.
An amended petition was filed on June 9, adding a fourth count to the petition alleging resisting a police officer ( 148, subd. (a)(1)). At a readiness conference held on June 10, appellant entered a denial to the amended petition, and he was ordered to be detained in juvenile hall pending further proceedings.
Appellant thereafter admitted the truth of the allegation in count four of the petition. In so doing, appellant agreed to waive his constitutional rights to a jurisdictional hearing, including, among other things, his right to produce and examine witnesses, and to remain silent. The maximum period of confinement was set at one year one month, and appellant was so advised. The matter was continued to July 29 for a dispositional hearing. Appellant was released to the custody of his parents.
A second amended petition was filed on July 14, this time adding four counts (counts five through eight, inclusive), including separate allegations that appellant had committed two felony assaults by means likely to produce great bodily harm ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), and two counts of misdemeanor battery ( 242). Appellant entered a denial the following day, he was ordered detained at juvenile hall, and further proceedings were scheduled for July 22.
At the next scheduled hearing, appellant entered a plea by admitting the truth of one of the assault charges (count five), which was reduced to a misdemeanor. The three additional allegations of the second amended petition were dismissed. In admitting count five, appellant agreed to waive his constitutional rights to a jurisdictional hearing, including, among other things, his right to produce and examine witnesses, and to remain silent. The maximum period of confinement was set at one year five months, and appellant was so advised. The matter was continued to August 5 for a dispositional hearing.
At the dispositional hearing, the court declared appellant to be a ward of the court, and ordered that he be detained in juvenile hall until notification by appellants mother to the probation department of the availability of a bed for him at a private placement camp in Santa Cruz, after which time he would be placed there. Terms of probation were also imposed.
We have reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, and have concluded the jurisdictional findings were supported by the evidence. There was no error in the disposition, as it was fully supported factually, and was chosen by the trial judge in accordance with applicable juvenile law principles. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and we have concluded there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Reardon, J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further dates are in the calendar year 2008, unless otherwise indicated.
[2] All subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
