In re Francisco B. CA5

Filed 1/2/15 In re Francisco B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FRANCISCO B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F069561

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJD064628)

v. OPINION FRANCISCO B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge. Arthur L. Bowie, 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 Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION On May 14, 2014, appellant Francisco B. was returned to Tulare County for a reentry/disposition hearing after being paroled from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Appellant was placed on probation under the supervision of the probation department upon various terms and conditions. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the orders of the juvenile court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In 2010, when appellant was 13 years old, he admitted to five counts of a forcible lewd act on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)).1 Each of the five counts alleged that appellant’s adult sentence would be 15 years to life (§ 667.61, subd. (b)). Four of the counts alleged appellant committed substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)). Appellant was 12 years old when he offended. Appellant and an accomplice groomed two female victims. One of his victims was only nine years old. Appellant and his juvenile accomplice held one of the victims’ wrists together, covered her mouth, and took turns fondling and attempting to sodomize her. Appellant admitted sodomizing both victims and raping one of them. Appellant threatened to kill the victims’ dog if they told anyone about the abuse. The DJJ discharge report indicated that appellant had relatives in Southern California who lived in a gang-free neighborhood and were willing to house appellant. This was an important consideration because the victims still lived next door to appellant’s parents. DJJ recommended appellant be randomly drug tested because he had an extensive history of using drugs and that he remain in sex offender counseling.