In re Santos B. CA2/8

Filed 3/25/16 In re Santos B. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re SANTOS B., a Person Coming Under B267723 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ52590)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SANTOS B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Benjamin R. Campos, Judge. Affirmed. Stephen Borgo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Santos B. appeals a judgment sustaining a notice under Welfare and Institutions Code section 7771 alleging that he violated the conditions of his probation. Appointed counsel on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment.

FACTS In December 2104, the People filed a petition under section 602 alleging that Santos committed the offenses of making criminal threats (count 1; Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor vandalism (count 2; Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)).2 At a pre-plea hearing in January 2015, Santos admitted to the petition and the juvenile court entered probation orders which included a condition that Santos not knowingly use or possess illegal drugs. In October 2015, the probation officer issued a notice of violation of probation pursuant to section 777. On October 19, 2015, the juvenile court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the notice of violation. David Martinez, Santos’s probation officer for the six months leading up to the hearing, testified. According to Martinez, Santos had admitted on several occasions that he had smoked marijuana. Further, Martinez found a number of pipes for smoking marijuana in Santos’s room. Santos presented no evidence in defense. His counsel recognized that Santos had apparently violated the terms of his probation by smoking marijuana, but argued to the court to reject “probation’s recommendation for camp . . . .” Counsel argued that Santos had not caused any problems during his probation, had been attending programs, that he was always remorseful for his actions, and that his abuse problems could be better addressed outside a camp placement.