In re Augustin B.
Filed 4/13/07 In re Augustin B. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
In re AGUSTIN B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AGUSTIN B., Defendant and Appellant. | A115480 (Napa County Super. Ct. No. JV14191) |
Agustin B., a minor, appeals from a judgment following revocation of his grant of deferred entry of judgment and the imposition of terms and conditions of probation. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to the minor, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
Statement of Facts and Procedural History[1]
On June 3, 2005, Agustin B. and three other minors went to the Steele Park Resort at Lake Berryessa to go swimming. They decided to look inside boats that were stored there for stereos. As a result of their actions several boats were vandalized and stereos were taken from some. The minor admitted to taking screwdrivers from a trailer and using them to pry stereos from several boats.
A petition was filed on March 10, 2005, alleging minor committed second degree burglary, a felony (Pen. Code, 459) and petty theft (Pen. Code, 484, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor. On April 18, 2005, minor was referred to the probation department to determine his eligibility for the deferred entry of judgment pursuant to the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 790. In a report filed June 13, 2005, the probation department recommended that minor be granted deferred entry of judgment for 12 to 36 months subject to 20 additional terms and conditions. On the same day the report was filed, minor admitted the allegations set forth in the petition, after waiving his rights. The court then adopted all of the recommendations set forth in the probation report and minor was then placed under Deferred Entry of Judgment pursuant to Section 790 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for a period of 12 to 36 months.
On June 14, 2006, the probation department filed a report for the 12-month review hearing that recommended revoking the grant of deferred entry of judgment due to minors poor performance in school. On the same date, the court summarily revoked the grant of deferred entry of judgment, and issued a bench warrant for the minor, but ordered it held until July 11, 2006. On July 11, the bench warrant was recalled and a restitution hearing was held. The court ordered that [a]ll minors owe restitution in the amount of $4,830.12 and are jointly and severly [sic] responsible for the entire amount.
Following the filing of another report on August 16, 2006, again recommending revocation of the minors grant of deferred entry of judgment, a contested hearing was held on September 14, 2006. At the hearing testimony was elicited showing that the minor was not attending classes and his grades were suffering. At the conclusion of the hearing the court revoked the grant of deferred entry of judgment and set the matter for a disposition hearing after counsel for the minor objected to some of the proposed conditions of probation set forth in the report of August 16. At the disposition hearing on September 27, 2006, counsel withdrew the objections to the probation conditions. The court then adopted the recommendations set forth in the probation officers report filed August 16, 2006, declared minor a ward of the court and ordered that he pay a restitution fine of $100.00 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, subdivision (b). This appeal followed.
Discussion
The minor was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Prior to admitting the allegations in the petition he was advised of his rights and waived those rights. The evidence presented at the contested hearing on September 14, established that the minor failed to comply with the requirements of his grant of deferred entry of judgment. The findings of the dispositional order, and the recommendations of the probation department that were adopted by the court are reasonable and supported by the evidence.
After a full review of the record, we find no arguable issues and, accordingly, affirm the order.
__________________________________ Swager, J. | |
We concur: __________________________________ Marchiano, P. J. __________________________________ Stein, J. |
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
[1] Since the appeal is taken from an admission, we need only concisely recite the facts pertinent to the underlying petition as necessary to our limited review on appeal.
