In re D.M.
Filed 7/16/13 In re D.M. CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FOUR
In re D.
M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D. M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A138193
(Contra
Costa County
Super. Ct.
No. J07-01949)
D.
M. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court and placing
him on probation in his mother’s home.
His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an
determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did
not do so.
On
November 13, 2007, a
Welfare and Institutions Code
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
section 602 petition was filed charging defendant, then age 13, with attempted
§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c) & 664).
The charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant and two
co-participants attempted to take an iPod from a 13-year-old boy. The court adjudged defendant a ward of the
court and placed him on home supervision.
Defendant
violated the home supervision program by being suspended from school for
fighting. The court again ordered him released to his mother’s home and placed
him on electronic monitoring. Defendant
subsequently tested positive for marijuana and was again suspended from school
for physically interfering with a teacher who was trying to stop a fight. On February
2, 2009, the court ordered defendant committed to the Orin Allen
Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) for six months. He was removed from OAYRF in April 2009,
following a fight with another resident.
Defendant admitted the probation violation on May 6, 2009 and was again committed to the
OAYRF. He successfully completed the
OAYRF program in August 2009.
Defendant,
however, continued to violate probation and commit offenses resulting in a
supplemental section 602 petition being filed in March 2010 alleging that
defendant, a minor, possessed ammunition (§ 777; Pen. Code, § 12101,
subd. (b)). Defendant admitted the
allegations of the supplemental petition and was ordered released to his mother
on electronic monitoring.
In
May 2010, the court found defendant in violation of probation for being tardy
to school, missing classes, and being suspended. The court again ordered defendant released to
his mother on electronic monitoring.
A
second supplemental petition was filed on November 23, 2010 alleging that defendant committed
burglary, receiving stolen property, possession of marijuana, and
vandalism. The court sustained the
allegations as to the receiving stolen property and vandalism counts. The court ordered defendant detained in
juvenile hall pending a placement in the OAYRF program.
In
December 2011, after his release from the OAYRF, defendant violated the terms
of his probation. Defendant admitted the
violation and was ordered released to his mother on electronic monitoring. Defendant violated probation again in January
2012 by smoking marijuana. The court
again released defendant on electronic monitoring.
On
May 25, 2012, a third
supplemental petition was filed alleging that defendant committed
December 2011. The matter was continued
for several months. In September 2013,
defendant requested a continuance to conduct further investigation and prepare
for the contested jurisdictional hearing. The court granted the continuance to October 23, 2012. In October 2012, defendant requested another
continuance because certain discovery had not yet been provided. The court granted the request and the matter
was thereafter continued an additional three times.
On
March 7, 2013, defendant
moved to suppress a pre-trial identification and to exclude any courtroom
identification by the same witness. He
argued that the “in-field showup†identification of defendant was impermissibly
suggestive. The court denied the
motion. It found that the police
admonished the witness before the show up and made no suggestive remarks, and
that the pretrial identification did not violate defendant’s constitutional
rights.
The
contested jurisdictional hearing was held on March 7 and 8, 2013. The evidence showed that Marianne Hill was
living on South Wildwood in Hercules on December 19, 2011.
At approximately 2:15 p.m.,
she was on her patio and saw defendant come out of the back patio of her
neighbor’s house carrying a flat screen television set and then go back into
the house. Hill was able to see
defendant’s face for less than a minute.
Hill called 911 and gave the dispatcher a description of the suspect. Hill identified defendant both at the police
station about six weeks after the burglary and at trial.
George
Weissflog testified that he lived at 140 South Wildwood in Hercules on December 19, 2011. He was not home at approximately 2:15 p.m. on December 19 and had locked all of
the doors to his residence before leaving.
When he returned home at 3:00 p.m.
or 4:00 p.m., he saw that the front
door had been kicked in and that his place was in shambles. His loveseat was upside down, there were
cushions everywhere, his television set was on the floor, and his bedroom
dresser drawers were open. Nothing,
however, was missing from his home.
Weissflog did not know defendant and had not given him permission to
enter his home.
Officer
Edward Li responded to the scene and found that the doorjamb of the front door
was damaged, that the rooms in the residence had been ransacked, and that a
television set was lying on the floor near the sliding patio door.
The
juvenile court sustained the petition finding that defendant committed a first
degree residential burglary.
The
dispositional hearing was held on March
21, 2013, approximately 15 months after the burglary. The probation report noted that since the
incident, defendant had graduated from high school, earned a welding
certificate, and was currently attending classes at Berkeley
City College. He had also maintained employment for the
past eight months. In addition,
defendant had not sustained any probation violations or been arrested during
the past year. The court recognized that
defendant had made strides over the past 15 months and that he was capable of
pursuing a successful career. The court
adjudged defendant a ward of the court, but released him from juvenile hall and
placed him on the home supervision program for 60 days on conditions including
that he complete 60 hours of community service by September 30, 2013.
Defendant
was represented by counsel and received a fair
hearing. Substantial evidence
supports the court’s findings. There was
no error in the disposition. There are
no meritorious issues to be argued.
The
dispositional order is affirmed.
_________________________
Rivera,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Reardon, Acting P.J.
_________________________
Humes, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
