In re Andre S.
Filed 10/4/07 In re Andre S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ANDRE S., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE S., Defendant and Appellant. | F052688 (Super. Ct. No. 07CEJ600171-1) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Martin Suits, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.)
Catherine Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Appellant, Andre S., was charged in a petition filed on February 1, 2007 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, with one felony count of a lewd and lascivious act on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)).[1] On March 20, 2007, Andre was advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea. Andre admitted a violation of misdemeanor statutory rape ( 261.5, subd. (c)). The court found, without an objection, a factual basis for the plea.
The probation officers report stated that an officer was dispatched to a residential disturbance on October 25, 2006. Andres mother told the officer she had an argument with Andres girlfriend who was truant from school and spending time at Andres residence. The girlfriend indicated she was having sex with Andre. Andres mother had the girlfriend take a home pregnancy test which showed a positive result. This caused another argument. The girlfriend admitted to having consensual sex with Andre twice in September 2006. Andre admitted to the officer that he had sex with the girlfriend, who was 13 years old at that time. Andre was over 17 years old.
The probation officer recommended probation with electronic monitoring, a community service work program, community service, and family counseling. The court placed Andre on probation upon various terms and conditions including a curfew, that Andre not associate with children under age 14 except in the presence of an adult, no consumption of alcohol, submitting to drug and alcohol testing, and enrollment into a sexual awareness class. After initially ordering Andre to complete a term of 90 days at the Juvenile Justice Campus, the court reduced Andres commitment to 60 days.
Andres appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Andre was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on July 19, 2007, we invited Andre to submit additional briefing. To date he has not done so.
DISCUSSION
Andre was fully advised of the consequences of his plea and his constitutional rights. Andre was advised he could receive up to a year in juvenile hall and was committed to the Juvenile Justice Campus for only 60 days. The court found a factual basis for Andres admission without objection from either party.[2] Andre was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and his mother was present at the disposition hearing. The terms and conditions of probation appear to be reasonably related to his rehabilitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 730, subd. (b); In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1033 [conditions of probation impermissible for adult probationer may be imposed in rehabilitation of minors].)
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., Cornell, J.
[1] Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The factual account of events in the probation report was based on a police report.
