In re C.G. CA4/3

Filed 7/25/14 In re C.G. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re C.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G048925 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DL044558) v. OPINION C.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nick A. Dourbetas, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony DaSilva and Peter Quon, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION A juvenile delinquency petition, filed in April 2013 (the April 2013 petition), alleged that then 16-year-old C.G. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because on April 20, he committed one count of assault and one count of battery. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) C.G. admitted the allegations of the April 2013 petition. He did not appeal from the juvenile court’s disposition order, dated May 8, 2013, placing him on supervised probation on the terms and conditions set forth in his signed disposition agreement. In August 2013, a second juvenile delinquency petition was filed (the August 2013 petition), which alleged C.G. had committed one count of second degree robbery. On September 3, 2013, the juvenile court sustained the August 2013 petition, and placed C.G. on supervised probation with additional terms and conditions. C.G. filed a notice of appeal which states he is appealing from the court’s orders dated August 30, 2013 through September 3, 2013. In his briefing on appeal, C.G. does not challenge any order issued during the time period specified in his notice of appeal, or any other ruling made in connection with the August 2013 petition. Instead, he argues the juvenile court erred, over three months earlier, by accepting his admission to both the assault count and the battery count of the April 2013 petition, because assault is a lesser included offense of battery. We affirm. Although C.G. appeals from the juvenile court’s order in connection with the August 2013 petition, he does not raise a single challenge to it in his briefing in this court. C.G. acknowledges he has never filed any notice of appeal as to the May 8, 2013 disposition order, much less a notice of appeal timely filed within 60 days of the date of that order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1).) Even if we had jurisdiction to consider C.G.’s argument that the juvenile court’s finding he committed assault should be reversed, his argument is without merit. C.G. chose to accept the bargain of the