In re Joshua J.
Filed 10/25/06 In re Joshua J. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| In re JOSHUA J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSHUA J., Defendant and Appellant. | A113845 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J05-01310) |
Joshua J. appeals from a dispositional order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him in the custody of the probation department for placement in a court-approved facility. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
On August 15, 2004, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging defendant committed one count of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1 (count one)). On November 16, 2005, the petition was amended to add a misdemeanor charge of annoying or molesting a child under age 18 (Pen. Code, § 647.6, subd. (a) (count two)). The charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant exposed his penis to three students in his junior high school.
On January 20, 2006, the People moved to amend count two to allege a charge of “annoying a child under the age of 18.” Defendant admitted count two as amended. The court granted the People’s motion to dismiss count one.
At the dispositional hearing, the court declared defendant a ward of the court and agreed with the prosecutor and the recommendation of the probation department that an out-of-home placement in a residential treatment facility was appropriate.
Defendant was represented by counsel and received a fair hearing. There was no error in the disposition. There are no meritorious issues to be argued.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
_________________________
RIVERA, J.
We concur:
_________________________
RUVOLO, P.J.
_________________________
REARDON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
