P v. LINO B.,
Filed 4/28/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
| In re LINO B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LINO B., Defendant and Appellant. |
C050274, C050803
(Super. Ct. No. JV119460)
|
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, John A. Mendez, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas M. Singman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and John G. McLean, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A petition alleged that minor Lino B. was within Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed two felony counts of second degree burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b).) In a negotiated disposition, he admitted one count as a misdemeanor and the other count was dismissed with a Harvey[1] waiver. The minor was placed on court probation for a stipulated term of nine months on conditions including a period of home supervision and performance of community service. He was ordered to pay a restitution fine and to make restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined.
In case No. C050274, the minor appeals from this judgment. He contends the nine-month period of probation must be reduced to the statutory maximum of six months. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725, subd. (a).)[2]
Following a contested hearing, the amount of victim restitution was determined to be $581. In case No. C050803, the minor appeals from this restitution order. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), he requests the court to make its own examination of the record of the restitution hearing.
We ordered the two appeals consolidated. We shall affirm the judgment in each case.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND[3]
On April 2, 2005, Sacramento County Sheriff's deputies responded to a silent alarm at the Laurel Ruff Center. They found the minor and six other juveniles in a classroom. One of the juveniles admitted that they had crawled in through an open window. Once inside, the minor and his companions consumed candy and milk. Several desk drawers had been opened and the contents ransacked. The juveniles also entered an adjoining classroom where desk drawers were found open and ransacked.
During the investigation, the school principal came to the facility. She told deputies that there had been a similar burglary on September 26, 2004, and that latent prints had been recovered from that incident. When the deputies informed the minor that fingerprints had been recovered from the previous burglary, he admitted to participating in the September burglary. The minor said that he had entered the office by being boosted up through a window that had been forced open. The minor also admitted entering the principal's office and handling property he had received from his accomplices.
DISCUSSION
I
The minor contends the nine-month term of probation must be reduced to the six-month maximum allowed by section 725, subdivision (a).[4] The People respond that the estoppel doctrine bars the minor's contention in light of his acquiescence to the imposed term of probation. The People have the better argument.
Before the minor admitted count one, the juvenile court recited the terms of the agreement as follows: â€
