In re Christian G.
Filed 10/12/11 In re Christian G. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
| In re CHRISTIAN G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B230645 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GJ26532) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN G., Defendant and Appellant. | |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Robin Sloan and Philip L. Soto, Judges. Affirmed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
In August 2008, police arrested the minor Christian G., then 15 years old, for committing one felony and three misdemeanor offenses: commercial burglary, obstruction or delaying a police officer in the performance of official duties, possession of tools to commit vandalism and possession of less than an ounce of marijuana (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 148, subd. (a)(1), 594.2, subd. (a), Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)). After the minor admitted he had committed commercial burglary as alleged, the juvenile court found count 1 true and declared the offense a misdemeanor. The juvenile court declared the minor to be a ward of the court and ordered him home on probation. The remaining allegations were dismissed.
In March 2009, the minor was taken into custody for felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)), which resulted in the filing of a second Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. The People filed a third section 602 petition against the minor, alleging he had committed felony vandalism on May 19, 2009. On August 17, 2010, the minor admitted the vandalism allegation in each petition and the court declared the offenses to be felonies.[1]
On August 13, 2010, the minor was detained for robbery. The People filed a fourth section 602 petition, this time alleging second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The petition was later amended to add a count of grand theft person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)). The minor admitted the allegations and the juvenile court sustained the petition and declared the offenses to be felonies. The juvenile court agreed the robbery charge would be dismissed, if the minor did not commit any new offense before the disposition hearing. However, if the minor committed any new offense, then the grand theft offense would be dismissed instead at the disposition hearing.
On November 16, 2010, police detained the minor, then 17 years old, for robbery and related offenses. The People filed a sixth section 602 petition, which alleged the minor had committed first degree robbery, aggravated assault, and making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 245, subd. (a)(1), 422).
At the January 10, 2011, jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found the minor committed all three offenses and sustained the petition. The petitions were consolidated for purposes of disposition on January 31, 2011. At the hearing the juvenile court ordered the minor to remain a ward of the court, dismissed the grand theft offense, and ordered the minor into a camp community placement program for nine months. The court calculated the total maximum theoretical period of confinement for all sustained allegations as nine years eight months.
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On July 7, 2011, we advised the minor that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied the minor’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order is affirmed.
WOODS, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J. ZELON, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
