In re B.N. CA2/8

Filed 5/16/13 In re B.N. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 B.N., a Person Coming Under the B242032 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE, Super. Ct. No. VJ41586)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Fumiko Wasserman, Judge. Affirmed.

Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Minor B.N. appeals from the juvenile court’s order revoking her probation at home. We reject B.N.’s contentions that the court erred by continuing the revocation hearing and by reopening the hearing to allow new evidence. We therefore affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In September 2011, 16-year-old B.N. was declared a ward of the juvenile court after the court found true allegations from two separate petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)1 that B.N. had committed one count each of felony and misdemeanor battery. B.N. was placed in camp custody, but, based on her good behavior there, was changed to probation at home in April 2012. In early May 2012, B.N.’s mother reported to B.N.’s probation officer that her daughter was violating the terms of her probation by disobeying mother and by drinking alcohol. A petition to revoke B.N.’s probation was filed on May 7, 2012. (§ 777.) When the probation revocation hearing started on Thursday, May 24, 2012, defense counsel told the court that the prosecution had made an offer that would allow B.N. to remain at home on probation. Defense counsel said B.N. was willing to accept the offer but, because her mother was not in court and mother’s phone was not working, asked that the court either release B.N. to another family member who could take B.N. to mother’s house or trail the hearing until the next court day. Because the court was dark on Friday, and because Monday was a judicial holiday, the next court day would be Tuesday, May 29, 2012. The court declined, stating it would first determine whether B.N. had violated her probation and, if so, consider the proper disposition when mother was available. The prosecution called Probation Officer Rita Davis to testify about her phone conversations with mother where mother reported B.N. was drinking and being disrespectful. This testimony was allowed in over B.N.’s objection that it did not qualify under section 777, subdivision (c), which allows the use of reliable hearsay at probation