>In re S.H.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed
10/3/13  In re S.H. CA5

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

FIFTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

 
>

In re S.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,                         v. S.H.,   Defendant and Appellant.	F067004   (Super. Ct. No. JL004137)     >OPINION

THE COURThref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

            APPEAL from a judgment of the
Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Merced
County.  David W. Moranda, Judge.

            J. Wilder Lee, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Office of the State Attorney
General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

>-ooOoo-

The
court adjudged appellant, S.H., a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 602)href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"
title="">^[1] after it found true allegations charging
appellant with one count of committing lewd and lascivious conduct with a child
under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)).  Following independent review of the record
pursuant to href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
HISTORY

            In January 2010, while visiting his
legal guardian’s relatives in Orange County, appellant put his hand down the
pants of a five-year-old girl and felt her genital area. 

            On August 27, 2010, the Orange
County District Attorney filed a petition charging appellant with one count of
lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14. 

            On September 10, 2010, the district
attorney filed a notice that appellant was eligible for deferred entry of
judgment (DEJ/§ 790).  On November 8,
2010, the probation department filed a report with the court recommending that
appellant be found unsuitable for DEJ and that the case be transferred to
Merced County for disposition because appellant and his family lived
there. 

            On November 15, 2010, the Orange
County Juvenile Court found appellant unsuitable for DEJ because he lived out
of the county and it transferred the case to Merced County. 

            On September 27, 2011, following a
contested jurisdictional hearing, the court sustained the lewd and lascivious
conduct charge. 

            On November 17, 2011, the Merced
County Juvenile Court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and committed him
to the Bear Creek Academy. 

            On December 8, 2011, appellant filed
a timely appeal.  

            On February 21, 2012, appellant
admitted a charge of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594(b)(2)(A)) and allegations
that he violated his probation (§ 777) that were contained in a subsequent
petition. 

            In an unpublished opinion filed on
December 5, 2012, this court found that the Orange County Juvenile Court
improperly used appellant’s county of residence as a factor to determine that
he was not suitable for DEJ.  We also set
aside the jurisdictional and dispositional orders and remanded the case to the
juvenile court to determine whether appellant is suitable for DEJ and for the
court to issue appropriate orders depending on its determination.  (People
v. S.H. (Dec. 5, 2012, F064014) [nonpub. opn.].) 

            On February 21, 2013, the probation
department filed a report recommending against a grant of DEJ based on several
factors including:  appellant’s mental
health issues which required that he receive specialized counseling in a more
structured setting and a level of treatment that exceed what could be provided
through a grant of DEJ; the inability of appellant’s guardians to properly deal
with appellant’s mental health issues; the guardians’ minimization of
appellant’s culpability for the assault on the victim; and the circumstances of
appellant’s offense. 

            On February 26, 2013, the court
granted appellant’s Marsdenhref="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">^[2] motion and appointed substitute counsel in
place of the public defender. 

            At a hearing on March 19, 2013, the
court cited appellant’s history of mental health issues since he was seven
years old and the inability of his guardians to deal with these issues in
finding appellant unsuitable for DEJ. 
Additionally, at this hearing appellant admitted violating his probation
by leaving his placement without permission. 


            On March 26, 2013, appellant filed
an appeal challenging the court’s finding that he was not suitable for
DEJ. 

Appellant’s
appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations
to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review
the record.  (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.)  Appellant has not responded
to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.

            Following an href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">independent review of the record we find
that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.