legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re G.U. CA6

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
In re G.U. CA6
By
06:23:2017

Filed 5/10/17 In re G.U. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In Re G.U., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. H044163
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. JV41589)


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.U.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Minor G.U. appeals from a dispositional order in proceedings under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified minor of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf. Minor has not done so.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (Id. at p. 110.)
Minor was involved in a solo car accident while driving on a San Jose freeway on December 3, 2015. Following her arrest for driving under the influence, her blood alcohol measured 0.12 percent. Minor was charged in a juvenile wardship petition with driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); count 1; a misdemeanor) and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b); count 2, a misdemeanor). Minor admitted count 2, and count 1 was dismissed. In March 2016, minor was placed on probation for six months without being adjudicated a ward of the court, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a). After admitting to a probation violation, minor was declared a ward of the court in June 2016.
Minor admitted to a second probation violation in August. She was detained and entered a local in-patient treatment program in September. She left the treatment facility after a few days, and was treated in an emergency room for alcohol withdrawal after a night of drinking. She was terminated from the program, taken into custody, and a contested disposition hearing was held in October 2016. Minor opposed the probation officer’s recommendation that she enter a residential treatment program, as none was available in county, requesting instead local out-patient treatment. The court adopted the probation officer’s recommendation, and minor was placed in a treatment program in Los Angeles.
A timely notice of appeal was filed from the October 2016 dispositional order.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

____________________________________
Grover, J.




WE CONCUR:




____________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J.




____________________________
Mihara, J.








H044163 – In re G.U.; People v G.U.




Description Minor G.U. appeals from a dispositional order in proceedings under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified minor of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf. Minor has not done so.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (Id. at p. 110.)
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 9 views. Averaging 9 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale