In re Derek U.
Filed 8/31/06 In re Derek U. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 DEREK U., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | H029836 (Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. JV23604E) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEREK U., Defendant and Appellant. |
On February 24, 2005, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that the minor, Derek U., violated Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. It was further alleged that in the commission of the offense, the minor personally inflicted great bodily injury on another in violation of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
On June 20, 2005, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 alleging that the minor had violated his probation by failing to obey all laws, associating with known gang members, and possessing gang-related materials.
A jurisdictional hearing on the petition filed February 24, 2005, was held on August 9, 2005. The juvenile court found the allegation in court 1 true, and sustained the great bodily injury allegation.
On October 12, 2005, the minor admitted that he had violated probation in that he had been arrested for violating the law, had possessed gang-related material and had associated with known gang members.
At the disposition hearing on January 11, 2006, the juvenile court continued the minor as a ward of the court, ordered him to serve 218 days in juvenile hall with credit for 218 days served, and imposed other terms of probation. The court then dismissed the case.
The minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. The minor was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from the minor.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
Duffy, J.
WE CONCUR:
Mihara, Acting, P.J.
McAdams, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
