In re Devon S.
Filed 4/3/09 In re Devon S. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
In re DEVON S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEVON S., Defendant and Appellant. | C059876 (Super. Ct. No. JV124273) |
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that Devon S., who was already a ward of the juvenile court, was in violation of the condition at probation that he obey all laws when he committed battery on the mother of his minor child. His wardship was continued and he was committed to the Sacramento County Boys Ranch.
Facts
Sacramento Police Officer Brian Surjan responded to a domestic violence call and was told by Y.J. that the minor, who was the father of her baby, had choked and punched her in the face several times. Y.J. later told Dana Burns, a victim advocate with the district attorneys office, that she had lied about the minor striking her. Y.J. said that she and the minor had been playing and that he had his hands around her neck and she had gotten tired of it. The court took judicial notice that the minor had a prior sustained felony charge of abuse pursuant to Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a), against Y.J.
Discussion
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from the minor. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
