In re Sandy B.

Filed 8/28/07 In re Sandy B. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Sandy B. appeals from an order continuing him a ward of the court and committing him to the Fouts Springs Youth Facility. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

On April 29, 2005, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (section 602) petition was filed against defendant alleging that he stole a car (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and that he received stolen property (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)). Defendant admitted the car theft. The court deemed the offense a felony and imposed a maximum term of confinement of three years and placed defendant on deferred entry of judgment.

A first amended section 602 petition was filed on June 30, 2006, alleging that defendant committed second degree robbery. On July 3, 2006, the court revoked the deferred entry of judgment and ordered defendant into wardship, placing him in the temporary custody of his probation officer. On July 20, 2006, the court authorized defendants release from juvenile hall and continued the matter.

A second amended section 602 petition was filed on August 21, 2006, alleging four felonies and two misdemeanors including possession of a deadly weapon and second degree burglary. A third amended section 602 petition was filed on August 22, 2006, alleging that defendant provided false information to a police officer and that he disobeyed a court order. A fourth amended petition was filed on October 23, 2006, alleging that defendant resisted arrest. Finally, a fifth amended section 602 petition was filed on November 28, 2006, alleging two counts of second degree robbery.

On December 7, 2006, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the court granted the district attorneys motion to amend the petition to add a grand theft charge in lieu of the second degree robbery charge in the first amended petition. Defendant admitted the grand theft charge as well as the allegations that he resisted arrest and that he committed a robbery. The remaining counts of the petition were dismissed subject to comment and restitution.

A contested disposition hearing was held on January 4, 2007. Defendants stepmother testified she could provide a safe living environment for defendant. On cross-examination, she admitted telling defendants probation officer that she had done all she could, and that defendant was not listening to her or his father. Robin S., the mother of the victim of defendants grand theft offense, testified that her son was traumatized by the incident and had moved to Portland, Oregon because he was afraid of defendant and of living in Vallejo. Alan Cole, defendants probation officer, testified that defendant denied the offenses and showed no insight into his involvement with the incidents with which he was charged. Cole stated that the probation department recommended defendant be committed to the Fouts Springs Youth Facility program because he needed a higher level of intervention. Since defendant was over 17 years old, Cole testified that the department believed this commitment would be a last attempt to have an impact and positive change on him before the juvenile court lost jurisdiction.

The court agreed with the probation department, continued defendant as a ward of the court and committed him to the Fouts Springs Youth Facility for a maximum term of confinement of six years and four months. The court granted defendant custody credits of 76 days.

Defendant was represented by counsel throughout these proceedings. There was no error in the disposition. The court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.

DISPOSITION

The dispositional order is affirmed.

________________________

RIVERA, J.

We concur:

___________________________

RUVOLO, P.J.

___________________________

SEPULVEDA, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.