In re Hugo E. CA5 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/24/14 In re Hugo E. 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 HUGO E., a Person Coming Under
    the Juvenile Court Law.
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                            F068546
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 13CEJ600701)
    v.
    HUGO E.,                                                                            OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT*
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A.
    Kelley, Judge.
    Gillian Black, 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 Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Detjen, J.
    Appellant, Hugo E., appeals from a finding by the juvenile court that he violated a
    grant of probation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777). Following independent review of the
    record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    , we affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    On December 13, 2011, El Monte police responded to an apartment regarding a
    minor, later identified as appellant, threatening to harm himself. When the officers
    located appellant, he resisted their efforts to detain him and attempted to run away but
    was taken into custody.
    On May 25, 2012, in Los Angeles County, appellant admitted allegations in a
    petition charging him with resisting arrest. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).)
    On March 19, 2012, appellant and eight other gang members beat up Miguel R.
    and his sister Ruby when she attempted to help Miguel. One of the attackers also pushed
    Ruby’s three-year-old daughter. Before leaving, one of the gang members threatened to
    kill Miguel’s entire family. Miguel suffered large knots and swelling on the left side of
    his face and his right eye was swollen shut. Ruby suffered a bloody nose.
    On July 15, 2013, in Madera County, appellant admitted two counts of assault by
    means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) in an
    amended petition in exchange for the dismissal of several other charges.
    On August 12, 2013, the matter was transferred to Fresno County.
    On October 1, 2013, at a dispositional hearing, the court adjudged appellant a
    ward of the court, placed him on probation in the custody of his parents, and ordered him
    to pay $4,962 to the Victim’s Compensation and Government Claims Board subject to a
    restitution hearing.
    On October 21, 2013, appellant was detained at the juvenile detention facility in
    Fresno.
    2
    On October 22, 2013, a supplemental petition was filed alleging appellant violated
    the terms of his probation by failing to attend school and to refrain from using drugs.
    On October 23, 2013, after appellant admitted that he violated his probation by
    failing to attend school, the court revoked his probation, placed him at the Juvenile
    Justice Campus, and ordered him screened for admission to the Substance Abuse unit.
    On November 5, 2013, the court set appellant’s maximum term of confinement at
    five years four months and it committed him to the Floyd Farrow Substance Abuse unit
    of the Juvenile Justice Campus for 180 days.
    Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with
    citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the
    record. (People v. Wende, supra, 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    .) Appellant has not responded to this
    court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
    Following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably
    arguable factual or legal issues exist.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F068546

Filed Date: 9/24/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021