Filed 12/7/05 In re Adam T. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| In re ADAM T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B183353 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ27362) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADAM T., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Charles Q. Clay and Gibson W. Lee, Judges. Affirmed.
Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
In February 2003 police detained then 14-year-old Adam T. for attempted second degree robbery and misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664, 242-243). The People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against him. After the People amended the petition, Adam T. admitted the new allegation of attempted grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 487, 664). The juvenile court declared Adam T. to be a ward of the court and ordered him home on probation. The remaining allegations were dismissed.
In July 2004 Adam T. was detained for unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle and receiving stolen property (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 496d), resulting in the filing of a second section 602 petition. In December 2004 the People filed a third section 602 petition against Adam T., this time alleging he had resisted, obstructed or delayed a peace officer in the performance of official duties (Pen. Code, § 149, subd. (a)).
At the March 15, 2005 adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found Adam T. had committed one offense of resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer as alleged in the third petition. On April 21, 2005 Adam T. admitted the allegation in the second petition that he had unlawfully taken or driven a vehicle, and the court declared the offense to be a felony.
The petitions were consolidated for purposes of disposition on April 26, 2005. At the hearing the juvenile court ordered Adam T. to remain a ward of the court and ordered him home on probation. The court calculated the total maximum theoretical period of confinement for all sustained allegations as three years ten months.
We appointed counsel to represent Adam T. on appeal.
After examination of the record counsel filed an â€
