In re D.M. CA5

Filed 8/19/16 In re D.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F073014

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 15CEJ600113-1)

v. OPINION D.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gregory T. Fain, Judge. Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald R. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Kevin L. Quade, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant D.M., a minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s denial of the request to seal her juvenile records under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 786. Appellant contends the juvenile court failed to utilize the proper legal analysis. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 26, 2015, a juvenile wardship petition was filed under section 602, alleging appellant committed the crime of battery against her mother, M.H. Appellant was initially placed on informal probation, but that probation was terminated and the petition was reinstated in June 2015. Appellant then admitted the charge in the petition and, on August 6, 2015, was deemed a ward of the court and placed on probation under the supervision of the probation department until February 6, 2016. Appellant’s probation included several required terms and conditions. These required appellant to engage in community service, write an essay, and pay a fine. They also required appellant to attend school, obey curfew requirements, avoid consuming alcohol or taking drugs, and attend various counseling services, among other requirements. At the August 6, 2015, disposition, a future hearing was set for January 6, 2016, to determine whether appellant’s juvenile records would be sealed under section 786. Prior to the January 6, 2016, hearing, a report and recommendation was submitted regarding whether appellant’s records should be sealed. The report noted that appellant had completed her essay and community service requirements. However, it also noted that appellant had failed several drug tests taken as part of her counseling services, admitted to ingesting marijuana, dropped out of school without enrolling in a Local Conservation Corps program, and failed to regularly attend counseling once established.