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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TORRIN D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
On February 28, 2006, a resident of the City of Rodeo called 911 to report an attempted burglary in progress. The witness told the responding officer that she had observed a young man, later identified as appellant, attempt to open her neighbor's front door and then walk to the back of her neighbor's house. The responding officer positioned herself to observe the back of the house and observed appellant remove an air conditioning unit from a window, place his foot on the base of the window, and put his hand inside the house. The officer then drew her gun, identified herself as a police officer, and ordered him to surrender. Appellant was arrested.
The officer testified that she had waited to apprehend appellant until she saw him actually put his hand inside the open window and that she did not wait for appellant to complete his entry into the house so as to avoid compromising officer safety.
A third supplemental petition was filed on March 2, 2006, alleging that appellant, while a ward of the juvenile court, had committed first degree residential burglary, which is a felony violation of Penal Code section 459/460, subdivision (a). Appellant appeared before the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court on March 23, 2006, for a hearing on the jurisdictional allegation. The juvenile court sustained the allegation of first degree burglary and found that the charge had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Shortly thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Alameda County Juvenile Court where he had previously been a ward.
On April 18, 2006, appellant appeared for a dispositional hearing. The court followed the probation department's recommendation that appellant continue as a ward of the court and be released under supervision. The court imposed standard terms of probation, including a curfew, prohibitions against possession of alcohol and narcotics, a $100 restitution fine, and 100 hours of community service. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
At the March 23, 2006 jurisdictional hearing in ContraCostaCounty, appellant filed written objections to the use of shackles and restraints during his courtroom appearances in ContraCostaCounty. The essence of his objection was that such restraints are unnecessary and prejudicial in the absence of specific individualized justification. At the March 23 hearing, the court responded to the objection by asking the courtroom bailiff to provide information relating to the use of shackles and handcuffs. The deputy responded that â€
Description
Appellant appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Court have carefully reviewed the entire record in the case, particularly the facts relevant to the disposition of the case, and court discern no error or potential error requiring further briefing.
