In re Raven D.

Filed 5/10/07 In re Raven D. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

Raven D. appeals from the juvenile courts orders sustaining a petition that alleged a probation violation and imposing a disposition for an admitted offense. Ravens counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

Background

In November 2003, Raven D. (born in April 1990) was declared a juvenile dependent by the Alameda County juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).[1] Ravens mother had a history of homelessness, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder and her fathers whereabouts were unknown.

On March 12, 2005, Raven ran away from her foster home and the social service agency was unable to locate her. On April 22, she was arrested for robbery in Hayward. The police reported that Raven and two other juveniles knocked a woman to the ground, punched and kicked her, forcibly took her purse, and fled. The district attorney filed a juvenile delinquency petition under section 602, charging felony robbery. (Pen. Code,  211.) An additional charge was added in May, alleging Raven committed felony burglary (Pen. Code,  459) when she broke into her aunt Katherine G.s apartment April 13 and stole $3,500 worth of property.

On May 23, 2005, pursuant to section 241.1, the juvenile court dismissed Ravens juvenile dependency case and adjudged her a probation ward. The court amended the section 602 petition to reduce the robbery charge to felony grand theft from a person. (Pen. Code,  487, subd. (c).) Raven admitted the offense and the court dismissed the burglary charge with restitution left open. The court set the maximum term of confinement at three years. At the disposition hearing, the court committed Raven to the care of the probation department for placement in a group home. The court imposed a $100 restitution fine and reserved the issue of victim restitution.

Raven was placed in a group home in Hayward in mid-June 2005. On July 17, Raven and another juvenile ran away from the home and took the group homes van. The van was located the next day, but the girls were not. On July 19, Ravens probation officer filed a modification petition pursuant to section 777 alleging Raven violated her probation by running away from her placement and because her whereabouts were unknown. Raven failed to appear at an August restitution hearing for the April 13 burglary and the court issued a warrant for her arrest.

On May 9, 2006, Raven was arrested in Oakland for possession of cocaine base. On May 11, the district attorney filed a subsequent petition under section 602 alleging felony possession of narcotics. (Health & Saf. Code,  11350). Raven had been arrested for shoplifting in San Francisco in April 2006, but the charges were dropped when authorities learned of her subsequent arrest in May. Raven expressed remorse for her offenses, a desire to stop using drugs and running away, and a commitment to apply herself in school. Both Raven and her mother said they wanted Raven to live with the mother in Solano County and attend a private school.

On May 12, the juvenile court held a hearing on the outstanding July 2005 section 777 petition as well as the May 2006 section 602 petition. Raven admitted the section 777 allegation. As to the section 602 petition, the court reduced the narcotics possession charge from a felony to a misdemeanor and Raven admitted the offense. (Health & Saf. Code,  11350, subd. (b).) The court ordered Raven detained and set the maximum term of confinement at three years four months. Because Ravens mother was then living in Solano County, the court transferred the case to that county.

On June 8, 2006, the Solano County juvenile court placed Raven in her mothers custody on electronic monitoring. Raven and mother had considerable conflict while living together, including an incident when the mother bit Ravens hand, and Raven twice left her mothers home to stay with other relatives. On August 7, the court changed Ravens placement to the home of her aunt Imani L. in Alameda County with her mothers consent.

On August 23, 2006, the Alameda County district attorney filed two petitions: (1) a petition pursuant to section 602 charging Raven with the July 2005 theft of the group homes van, a felony (Veh. Code,  10851), and (2) a modification petition pursuant to section 777 alleging violations of probation because Raven ran away from the group home and stole the van in July 2005. An Alameda County probation officer called Ravens aunt Imani L. on August 28 to investigate the case and learned that Raven ran away from her aunts home on about August 28, 2006. After running away, she engaged in prostitution while in a relationship with an adult male pimp. On September 5, the Solano County probation department filed a section 777 petition alleging violation of court orders because Ravens whereabouts were unknown.

Raven was arrested September 28, 2006 in Alameda County. On October 2, the Alameda County juvenile court held a hearing on the section 602 petition that alleged theft of the group home van in July 2005. The court reduced the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor and Raven admitted the offense. The Alameda County juvenile court found there was a factual basis for the admission and found the allegations of the petition true. The court set the maximum term of confinement at three years eight months, ordered Raven detained, and transferred the case to Solano County for disposition. The court imposed $613.32 in restitution to Katherine G., the victim of the April 2005 burglary.

On October 11, the Solano County juvenile court accepted the transfer and ordered Raven detained in juvenile hall or released on electronic monitoring, at the probation officers discretion. On November 3, the court held a contested hearing on Solano Countys September 2006 section 777 petition and on the disposition order for the van theft charge that Raven had admitted in Alameda County juvenile court October 2. After hearing testimony by the probation officer about Ravens running away from her aunts home in August 2006, the court sustained the allegations of the section 777 petition. After hearing testimony from Ravens mother, the court rejected Ravens request for placement at home and placed her in New Foundations. As a condition of probation, both Raven and her mother were ordered to participate in family counseling. Raven was to be referred to the family preservation program upon completion of New Foundations, if appropriate. The court set the maximum term of confinement at three years eight months; committed her to 37 days in juvenile hall with 37 days credit; found her total custody credits were 171 days; and imposed a legal services fee of $250. In the same order, the court ordered Raven to pay $613.32 in victim restitution and a $50 restitution fine.

Discussion

When an indigent criminal defendants appointed counsel files a brief raising no specific issues, we review the entire record to determine if there are any legal issues arguable on their merits. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 117-118.) If we identify potentially meritorious legal issues, we must appoint counsel to argue those issues on the defendants behalf. (Id. at p. 118.) We have reviewed the record in this case and find no arguable issues on appeal.

During the evidentiary hearing on the section 777 petition, the prosecutor did not ask his witness about the underlying incident, Ravens running away from her aunts home in August 2006, until redirect examination. Defense counsel objected that the redirect was beyond the scope of the cross-examination, but the court overruled the objection and the defenses subsequent motion to strike. A trial court has discretion to allow a party to reexamine a witness on the subject matter of a previous examination. (Evid. Code,  774.)

Regarding the jurisdictional finding on the section 602 petition for the July 2005 van theft, Raven admitted committing the offense after knowingly and voluntarily waiving her constitutional rights and being advised of the maximum term of confinement. Ravens counsel joined in the waiver and stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea. The court sustained the petition as amended.

Regarding the disposition order on the July 2005 van theft, the court heard and evaluated the testimony of Ravens mother and concluded it weighed against Ravens request for placement in the mothers home. The mother testified that she knew of Ravens whereabouts after she ran away from the group home and her aunts home, periods when probation was not informed of her whereabouts. She refused to acknowledge her extensive history of referrals to Child Protective Services and she denied the biting incident when Raven was in her custody in July and August 2006. Ravens previous placement in her mothers home had been unsuccessful. The defense offered no other evidence to challenge the recommended disposition. The court made the necessary finding that placement in the parents home was contrary to the minors welfare, despite reasonable efforts to avoid removal, and set the maximum term of confinement. ( 726, subds. (a), (c).)

Regarding the courts order that Raven pay victim restitution of $613.32, Ravens counsel and the prosecutor agreed to that order at the October 2, 2006 hearing in Alameda County juvenile court. Both counsel waived irregularities as to the order. The court ordered the financial order plus any fine attached to the underlying case previously transferred to Solano County. The Solano County juvenile court ordered a $613.32 restitution payment and a $50 restitution fine as part of its November 3, 2006 disposition order. The Alameda County juvenile court had already imposed a restitution fine for the burglary in May 2005, but the Solano County juvenile court was required to impose a restitution fine for the van theft in its November 2006 disposition order. ( 730.6, subd. (b)(2).)

Raven was represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings. Appellate counsel advised defendant of her right to file a supplementary brief to bring to the courts attention any issue she believed deserved review. (People v. Kelley, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106.) Raven did not file a supplementary brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.

Disposition

The November 3, 2006 orders are affirmed.

GEMELLO, J.

We concur.

JONES, P.J.

NEEDHAM, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.

[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.