In re Gerrell H.
Filed 7/21/06 In re Gerrell H. CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re GERRELL H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERRELL H., Defendant and Appellant. | A113080 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. JO4-00876) |
Gerrell H., who is now 18 years of age but was a minor at the time the court sustained the petition, appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court sustaining a petition alleging that he comes within the provisions of section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code in that he violated previously imposed conditions of probation. Appellant appeals as well from the placement ordered as a result of the revocation of his probation. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
On December 14, 2005, the Contra Costa County Probation Department filed a notice pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, that appellant had been absent from school without excuse, repeatedly tardy and misbehaving in school, for which he had been suspended, all of which was in violation of the conditions of his probation. Appellant thereafter admitted the allegation that he had been suspended from school due to his defiance of staff and the remaining allegations were dismissed pending further investigation.
At a contested disposition hearing held on January 6, 2006, appellant was continued on probation as a ward of the court, removed from the custody of his parents, and ordered into appropriate placement. On February 7, 2006, he was placed at the Fouts Springs Youth Facility for a maximum term of six years, with 263 days of credit for time served in custody (164 days) and at the county ranch (99 days).
Appellant's relevant prior juvenile history is as follows. On May 4, 2004, the district attorney filed a petition alleging two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), a felony, and two counts of assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), also a felony. On June 7, 2004, appellant admitted one count of robbery and one count of assault. At the dispositional hearing held on June 22, 2004, appellant was adjudged a ward of the court, granted probation, and placed at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for a nine-month program.
On August 27, 2004, the probation department notified the court that appellant had violated probation for failure to adjust at the Orin Allen program. Appellant admitted the allegations and was ordered returned to that program and the commitment was prolonged by an additional 30 days.
On December 28, 2004, the district attorney filed a supplemental 602 petition alleging that appellant's inability to adjust to the Orin Allen program may been due to his failure to take his medication, which was a condition of acceptance into the program. The petition was sustained at a hearing one day later. At a dispositional hearing on January 11, 2005, appellant was ordered placed at Summit Center. On September 19, 2005, the placement order was set aside and appellant returned to the custody of his parents.
On October 26, 2005, the probation department again filed notice that appellant had violated probation, this time due to two suspensions from school. Appellant admitted the allegation, and was placed on home supervision for 30 days. Less than a month later, the probation department filed notice that appellant failed to comply with a reporting requirement of the home supervision program, but it appears this may have been due, at least in part, to the fact that those who supervise compliance with the home supervision program were unaware of the order placing appellant in that program. Appellant was then again placed on home supervision for a period of 30 days.
On February 24, 2006, appellant filed a timely appeal from the January 6, 2006 order revoking his probation and placing him on home supervision.
DISCUSSION
At the commencement of the December 20, 2006 hearing, the court summed up the allegations against appellant by noting that since the prior dispositional order he had repeatedly failed to attend school regularly, showed up late for a meeting with his probation officer, was suspended from school on one occasion for defiance to staff and on another occasion for â€
