In re Robert D. CA4/1 ( 2013 )

Filed 12/16/13 In re Robert D. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re ROBERT D., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, D063909
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. JCM232986)
ROBERT D.
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder
A. Willis, Judge. Affirmed.
Sarah Kleven McGann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
Robert D., age 14, admitted, and the juvenile court found true, allegations of first
degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460), and that a person, not an accomplice, was
present during the burglary (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). The court dismissed the
remaining allegations, i.e., use of a dangerous weapon during the burglary, and a
misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 602.5. The court adjudged Robert a ward
of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, placed him on
probation with numerous terms and conditions, and detained him with his grandmother.
The true finding on the first degree burglary charge rendered appellant ineligible for
deferred entry of judgment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 790, 707, subd. (b)(16); Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 5.800.)
FACTS1
On February 28, 2013, appellant, who was carrying a kitchen knife, entered a
residence and rummaged through drawers in the bedroom and took a pair of women's
panties. While there, he used the victim's computer to access a pornographic Web site.
The owner returned and found appellant attempting to hide in an upstairs closet;
appellant's knife was found on the desk in that room.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to four possible, but
not arguable, issues: (1) whether the prosecutor denied appellant due process by failing
to file a written declaration whether he was eligible for deferred entry of judgment; (2)
1 The facts are taken from the probation officer's social study report prepared for the
disposition hearing.
2
whether the court prejudicially erred in not holding a hearing to determine appellant's
suitability for deferred entry of judgment; (3) whether a minor may admit less than all
allegations of a juvenile petition and still be eligible for deferred entry of judgment; and
(4) whether appellant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when she waived
consideration of deferred entry of judgment. We granted appellant permission to file a
brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and
Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by
appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent
counsel has represented appellant on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
MCINTYRE, J.
3