In re Trevor G. CA5

Filed 7/31/13 In re Trevor G. CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TREVOR G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F066001

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 513089)

v. OPINION TREVOR G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Nan Cohan Jacobs and Susan D. Siefkin, Judges.† Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen McKenna, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Peña, J. † Judge Jacobs presided over the deferred entry of judgment hearing. Judge Siefkin presided over the joint jurisdiction and disposition hearing.

INTRODUCTION On September 6, 2012, a first amended petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 alleging that appellant, Trevor G., committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, count 1) and three counts of grand theft of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(2), counts 2, 3, 4). The prosecutor notified appellant that he was eligible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). The prosecutor and probation officer recommended appellant was not suitable for DEJ. The hearing on whether to grant DEJ was continued on September 4, 2012, because the original report prepared by the probation department was inadequate. On September 20, 2012, the juvenile court denied appellant’s request for DEJ. On October 9, 2012, appellant entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his constitutional rights and admitted counts 2 and 3 in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining allegations. The court placed appellant on probation upon various terms and conditions and in his parents’ custody.2 On appeal, appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding him unsuitable for DEJ. SUITABILITY INFORMATION AND HEARING On August 23, 2012, Officer Brar of the Modesto Police Department was dispatched to appellant’s home to investigate a residential burglary. When appellant’s mother arrived home after work, she found her bedroom door locked. The sliding glass