In re C.D. CA5

Filed 11/1/13 In re C.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067075

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Tulare Super. Ct. No. JJD066158)

v. OPINION C.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge. Erik R. Beauchamp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

-ooOoo- INTRODUCTION Appellant C.D., a minor, was declared a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) based on his admission of two misdemeanor counts. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Probation On June 27, 2012, appellant was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and placed on formal probation in Tulare County based on his admission to committing two counts of misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)), and one count of misdemeanor criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422). The court ordered appellant to attend counseling for anger management, and drug and alcohol problems. He was also ordered to attend individual, group, and family counseling; abstain from the use of marijuana, alcohol, and controlled substances; abide by a 9:00 p.m. curfew; pay restitution fines and fees; complete 40 hours of community service; attend school regularly; and abide by his parents’ directives. Theft of camera and equipment On September 11, 2012, appellant’s mother reported to the Porterville Police Department that she suspected appellant had stolen a Nikon digital SLR camera and two camera lenses from her several days earlier. According to appellant’s mother, appellant said he took the items to settle a $200 debt, and he could recover the camera if she gave him $100. Appellant’s mother gave him the money, but appellant left the house and she had not seen him since September 6, 2012.