In re K.I.
Filed 6/20/07 In re K.I. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re K. I., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K. I., Defendant and Appellant. | A116092 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J34640) |
K. I., a minor, appeals from a judgment following an order continuing him as a ward of the juvenile court 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 appellant, 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 order.
Statement of Procedural History and Facts
The appellant has a lengthy history that has led up to the order on review before us. On April 18, 2004, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant violated Penal Code sections 215, subdivision (a) (carjacking) and 211 (robbery). The petition was amended to add a count three alleging a violation of Penal Code section 487 (grand theft). Appellant admitted the allegation in count three and the remaining charges were dismissed.[1] He was placed in the care of his parent or guardian, referred to the probation department for disposition, and the mater was continued to August 9, 2004. It appears that appellant failed to contact the probation department and the hearing was continued culminating in the issuance of a bench warrant on September 15, 2004. On November 15, 2004, a dispositional order adjudged the appellant a ward of the court. He was placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions, and placed in the custody of his mother.
On January 12, 2005, a notice of probation violations was filed. On January 13, 2005, appellant admitted the violations, was continued a ward of the court and continued on probation.
On March 2, 2005, another notice of probation violations was filed, and a bench warrant was subsequently issued. Appellant appeared on July 20, 2005, admitted the probation violations and again was continued on probation.
A new petition was filed on August 18, 2006, alleging that appellant committed a petty theft (Pen. Code, 484, subd. (a)) on August 17, 2006. On August 28, 2006, appellant admitted the allegation. On September 12, he was adjudged a ward of the court, placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions and again placed in the custody of his mother.
A third petition was then filed on September 19, 2006, charging appellant with unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)), and driving without a license (Veh. Code, 12500, subd. (a)). Following a contested hearing on October 27, 2006, the court sustained the allegations in counts two and three, receiving stolen property and driving without a license respectively. On November 13, 2006, the receiving stolen property count was deemed to be a felony, appellant was continued a ward of the court, and again placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions and remained in the custody of his mother. This appeal followed.
The petition filed on September 19, resulted from a traffic stop on September 18, 2006. On that date Officer Kent of the Vallejo Police Department stopped a car that the minor was driving due to an expired registration tag on the vehicle. The minor stated that he did not have a drivers license and he could not produce any registration or proof of insurance. The officer learned that the license plate on the car was from a different car. He then observed that the key that had been in the ignition was shaved. The car had been reported stolen in late August or early September and the minor did not have permission to take it.
After being advised of his Miranda rights[2]the minor stated that he had purchased the car a few days earlier from a person known only as Boss, and he did not receive any paper work for it. Tiree H., who was on probation and a ward of the court, testified that he had purchased the car from a person by the name of Reg in September for 200. He never registered the car and testified that the registration information was in the glove compartment as far as [he knew]. He sold the car to appellant, and about a week later learned that appellant had been arrested. He testified that Reg regularly sells stolen cars.
Appellants mother testified that she gave her son $180, $160 to purchase a car. She knew her son purchased the car from Tiree H. but never saw any registration and knew that her son did not have a license.
Discussion
Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Appellant was advised that he could personally file a supplemental pro per brief and has not done so. We have carefully reviewed the entire record. The evidence presented at the contested hearing held on October 27 is sufficient to support the courts findings. Although appellant presented a defense to establish that he did not have knowledge that the vehicle was stolen, it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of the witnesses. (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314.) The dispositional order is proper and is well within the discretion of the court.[3] The court did not err in calculating the maximum period of appellants confinement.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. There are no issues requiring further briefing and accordingly, affirm the order.
__________________________________ Swager, J. | |
We concur: __________________________________ Marchiano, P. J. __________________________________ Margulies, J. |
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
[1]The record indicates that the minor admitted to being an accessory (Pen. Code, 32) to the crime of grand theft.
[2]See Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
[3]We observe that defense counsels initial comments at the disposition hearing are inappropriate and note that the court promptly reminded him that he is an officer of the court.
