In re Timothy F. CA5

Filed 7/26/13 In re Timothy F. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re TIMOTHY F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F066767

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JW129623-01)

v. OPINION TIMOTHY F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. William D. Palmer, Judge. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Peña, J.

It was alleged in a juvenile wardship petition filed November 29, 2012, that appellant, Timothy F., a minor, committed a violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer). On January 14, 2013, following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found the allegation of the petition to be true. The court also found that appellant had violated probation granted in a previous case in which appellant had been granted deferred entry of judgment. At the disposition hearing on January 29, 2013, in the instant case, the juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation with various terms and conditions, including that he perform 64 hours of service in the juvenile court work program. In the prior case, the court continued appellant on probation under the deferred entry of judgment program. Appellant‟s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court‟s invitation to submit additional briefing. We affirm. FACTS Prosecution Case At approximately 1:45 p.m. on November 21, 2012, Bakersfield Police Officers Karl Martin1 and Kelly Williams were dressed in “civilian attire,” sitting in a parked, unmarked police car conducting surveillance, when appellant and Brenden R. (Brenden)2