In re Robert D. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Dec 16, 2013 No. D063909Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Issues

Whether the prosecutor denied due process by failing to file a written declaration regarding deferred entry of judgment eligibility.
Whether the court erred in not holding a hearing to determine suitability for deferred entry of judgment.
Whether a minor may admit less than all allegations of a juvenile petition and remain eligible for deferred entry of judgment.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by waiving consideration of deferred entry of judgment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”

Filed 12/16/13 In re Robert D. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re ROBERT D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, D063909

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. JCM232986)

ROBERT D.

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder

A. Willis, Judge. Affirmed.

Sarah Kleven McGann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.

Robert D., age 14, admitted, and the juvenile court found true, allegations of first

degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460), and that a person, not an accomplice, was

present during the burglary (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). The court dismissed the

remaining allegations, i.e., use of a dangerous weapon during the burglary, and a

misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 602.5. The court adjudged Robert a ward

of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, placed him on

probation with numerous terms and conditions, and detained him with his grandmother.

In re Robert D. CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D063909

ROBERT D.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTS1

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

HALLER, J.

MCCONNELL, P. J.

MCINTYRE, J.

AI Brief