In re Trevor H.
Filed 8/31/07 In re Trevor H. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re TREVOR H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TREVOR H., Defendant and Appellant. | E042342 (Super.Ct.No. J206190) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ronald M. Christianson and Marsha Slough, Judges. Affirmed.
Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Various petitions, including new and amended petitions were filed against the minor between January 31, 2006, and May 2, 2006. The petitions alleged violations of Penal Code sections 243.2, subdivision (a)(1), 243.6, 245.5, subdivision (a) and Vehicle Code section 10853.
On May 26, 2006, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the minor, represented by counsel, was found to be a person within the meaning of Welfare & Institutions Code section 602. At that time, the juvenile court found the allegations charged in both the amended petition and the second amended original petition to be true and also found the allegations to be misdemeanor violations of the law (Veh. Code, 10853; Pen. Code, 243.2(a)(1) and 243.6). And, finally, the juvenile court found that the allegation charged pursuant to Penal Code section 243.5(a) in the second amended original petition to be not true. Thereafter, a contested dispositional hearing was conducted on September 20, 2006, and the minor was placed on probation, released to the custody of his parents, and ordered to pay restitution.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
