In re Andrew W.
Filed 4/21/06 In re Andrew W. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977 .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 TWO
| In re ANDREW W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B181532 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ12055) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW W., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. H. Kirkland Jones, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Cheryl B. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Russell A. Lehman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________
Andrew W. appeals from the order entered (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777)[1] modifying the previous order of home on probation and ordering appellant committed to the camp-community program after his admission that he was not in compliance with the previous orders for home supervision.
On appeal, he contends that he was denied due process and that the juvenile court's order violated the doctrine of the separation of powers because the juvenile court, not the prosecutor, ordered the initiation of the section 777 proceedings.
THE FACTS
On June 28, 2004, 18-year-old appellant admitted a robbery and was adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court. (§ 602, Pen. Code, § 211.) He was placed home on probation. The facts underlying the robbery were that when appellant was age 17, he and a cousin took by force another teenager's motorized scooter. To accomplish the robbery, appellant twice socked the victim in the stomach. He also threatened to kill the victim if the victim told anyone about the robbery. Appellant and his cousin took the scooter in order to purchase marijuana. At adjudication, appellant admitted smoking marijuana and that he had been expelled and was not attending school. At that time, appellant was in the 11th grade.
At disposition, the juvenile court ordered home on probation. It additionally ordered appellant to attend school, not to possess or use controlled substances, and to stay away from places where users congregate.
On December 28, 2004, the probation department filed a progress report indicating that in November 2004, appellant had failed to report to the probation officer, as required. Also, on August 23, 2004, appellant had stopped attending school and had failed to provide proof to the probation officer that he had completed the court-ordered community service. The results of his October 20, 2004, narcotic testing indicated that he was using marijuana. The probation officer reported that appellant was attempting to find employment. The probation officer recommended admonishment and continuing appellant home on probation and suggested that a section 777 petition be filed in the event that appellant continued to ignore the juvenile court's orders.
At the hearing, the juvenile court observed that appellant had two problems: he was not attending school, and he was â€
