In re Roman V.
Filed 8/23/06 In re Roman V. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re ROMAN V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, H029319
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Clara County
Superior Court
v. No. JV29111)
ROMAN V.,
Defendant and Appellant.
_____________________________________/
The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that appellant Roman V., a minor, committed lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 in violation of Penal Code[1] section 288, subdivision (a). Appellant stipulated to the truth of the petition excluding his knowledge of the wrongfulness of his actions and his specific intent to commit the crime. The juvenile court sustained the petition and adjudged appellant a ward of the court.[2] The court returned appellant to the custody of his mother with several conditions, including: (1) that he and his mother complete psychological counseling and the Sex Offender Treatment Program as deemed appropriate by the Probation Department; (2) that he have no contact with the victim; and (3) that he not be within arm's reach of any minor 12 years of age or under in a non-public place without being in sight or hearing range of a competent adult. On appeal, appellant contends there is insufficient evidence that he knew the wrongfulness of his acts within the meaning of section 26 and that he had the requisite specific intent to commit the violation of section 288, subdivision (a). We disagree and affirm the judgment.
I.Background
A. Evidence Presented at Jurisdictional Hearing
An initial question presented by the parties concerns the evidence the juvenile court considered in reaching its decision. At the start of the contested jurisdictional hearing, the following colloquy occurred:
â€
