In re Armando M.
Filed 7/31/06 In re Armando M. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re ARMANDO M., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARMANDO M., Defendant and Appellant. |
F049839
(Super. Ct. No. 02CEJ601532-3)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. R.L. Putnam, Judge.
Susan D. Shors, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Without raising any issues on appeal, Armando M. asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
In February 2004, 16-year-old Armando and several adult men were involved in a sexual assault against a 17-year-old female. Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found Armando committed rape in concert and placed him in the California Youth Authority (CYA) for a maximum period of confinement of nine years. (Pen. Code, § 264.1)
Armando appealed the judgment. On September 19, 2005, we reversed and remanded for a new dispositional hearing to allow the juvenile court to consider imposing a shorter maximum period of confinement based on the facts and circumstances that brought Armando before the juvenile court as required under newly amended Welfare and Institutions Code, section 731, subdivision (b). (In re Armando M., F047419.)
At a new dispositional hearing on January 6, 2006, the juvenile court expressly considered various reports, letters of commendation from CYA facility staff, and Armando's statements. The juvenile court reduced Armando's maximum period of confinement to five years after detailing his particular facts and circumstances and comparing them to the aggravating and mitigating factors under California Rules of Court, rules 4.421 and 4.423.
This court and appellate counsel invited Armando to submit any additional briefing for the court's consideration, but he did not responded. After conducting our own independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-110.)
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Real Estate Lawyers.
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
