In re C.D.
Filed 11/1/13
In re C.D. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re C.D., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
C.D.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F067075
(Tulare
Super. Ct. No. JJD066158)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge.
Erik R.
Beauchamp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of
the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant C.D., a minor, was
declared a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)
based on his admission of two misdemeanor counts. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a
brief which summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no
issues, and asks this court to independently
review the record. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm.
Probation
On June 27,
2012, appellant was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and placed on formal
probation in Tulare County based on his admission to committing two counts of
misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)), and one count of
misdemeanor criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422).
The court
ordered appellant to attend counseling for anger management, and drug and
alcohol problems. He was also ordered to
attend individual, group, and family counseling; abstain from the use of
marijuana, alcohol, and controlled substances; abide by a 9:00 p.m. curfew; pay
restitution fines and fees; complete 40 hours of community service; attend
school regularly; and abide by his parents’ directives.
Theft of camera and equipment
On
September 11, 2012, appellant’s mother reported to the Porterville Police
Department that she suspected appellant had stolen a Nikon digital SLR camera
and two camera lenses from her several days earlier. According to appellant’s mother, appellant
said he took the items to settle a $200 debt, and he could recover the camera
if she gave him $100. Appellant’s mother
gave him the money, but appellant left the house and she had not seen him since
September 6, 2012.
Appellant’s
mother told his probation officer that appellant said he took the property to
pay his drug dealer. She said appellant
was out of control and she was afraid he would assault her or someone in their
family.
On February
9, 2013, police officers took appellant into custody on an active warrant. Appellant said his mother and stepfather
kicked him out of the house, and he did not voluntarily leave. Appellant said he stole his mother’s camera
to make her upset, and he later sold it so he could get some money to survive. Appellant admitted he had been using drugs again,
and he failed to take his prescribed medication for his mental health
issues. Appellant said he was not
physically or mentally stable, he had serious
he had previously attempted suicide.
Instant petition
On October
5, 2012, a juvenile petition was filed in the Superior Court of Tulare County
which alleged that appellant committed count I, felony grand theft of personal
property (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)); and count II, misdemeanor false
pretenses (Pen. Code, § 532, subd. (a)).
A notice of probation violation was
also filed based on appellant’s conduct of absconding from his residence; his
failure to enroll in mental health treatment, anger management, and individual
and family counseling; abstain from the use of drugs; complete 40 hours of
community service; attend school on a regular basis; abide by the set curfew;
abide by his parents’ directives, and make any payments toward restitution
fees.
dispositional order
On March 1,
2013, appellant admitted the new violations, and the court reduced the grand
theft charge to a misdemeanor. Appellant
also admitted the probation violation allegations.
On March
21, 2013, the court conducted the disposition hearing and adjudged appellant a
ward of the court. The probation officer
recommended appellant’s placement with his mother, instead of a custodial
situation, to receive services for substance abuse, family dysfunction, and
mental health issues. The court
disagreed because appellant failed to deal with these issues when he was
previously placed at home.
The court ordered appellant to the
short term program at Tulare County’s Youth Treatment Center Unit, under the
probation department’s supervision, for 90 to 180 days, so he could receive
psychiatric treatment and medication in a custodial environment. After completing the custodial program,
appellant would be placed on probation subject to specific terms and
conditions, including attendance of an after-care program to help him readjust
to life at home. The maximum term of
confinement was two years four months.
On April 8, 2013, appellant filed a
timely notice of appeal.
As noted
above, appellant’s counsel has filed a Wende
brief with this court. The brief also
includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was
advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on July 31, 2013, we invited
defendant to submit additional briefing.
To date, he has not done so.
After
independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual
or legal issues exist.
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.
