Filed 8/6/13 In re D.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.G., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F066405

(Super. Ct. No. 11CEJ600879-1V2)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A. 

Gaab, Judge.

Donna J. Hooper, 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 Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Franson, J.
2

Appellant, D.G., a minor, was initially adjudged a ward of the juvenile court on 

November 28, 2011, following her adjudication of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The court 

declared the offense to be a felony and placed appellant on probation. 

On August 1, 2012,1 appellant admitted allegations that she violated her probation 

by failing to attend and complete her court-ordered anger management program, obey 

directives of the probation department, obey all laws, and refrain from associating with 

her coparticipants in the robbery of which she was adjudicated. That same date, the court 

readjudged appellant a ward of the court, continued her on probation and ordered that she 

participate in the Girl‟s Treatment Program. 

On November 7, a supplemental wardship petition was filed in which it was 

alleged appellant violated her probation by failing to obey all laws and “[f]ail[ing] to 

refrain from possessing stolen property.” On November 28, appellant admitted the latter 

allegation. At the disposition hearing on December 12, the court ordered appellant 

committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile 

Facilities (DJF) and set appellant‟s maximum period of confinement at five years, less 

235 days credit for time served. The instant appeal followed. 

Appellant‟s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which 

summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that 

this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) 

Appellant has not responded to this court‟s invitation to submit additional briefing. We 

affirm.

 

1 Further references to dates of events are to dates in 2012.
3

FACTS2

According to a Fresno Police Department (FPD) report, on November 1, FPD 

officers, responding to a report of a robbery at a restaurant, made contact with the victim, 

who told officers the following: She was sitting outside the restaurant with a companion, 

waiting for a table, with her purse positioned between her legs and her cell phone in her 

hand, when appellant and two males sat down next to her. Thereafter, appellant “stood 

up and grabbed the victim‟s purse and ran away.” The two males “followed [appellant] 

and one of the males grabbed the victim‟s cell phone out of her hand and also ran away.” 

The report further states the following: Officers, after speaking with the victim, 

saw appellant, “who matched the description of the female in the call,” along with “other 

subjects,” near the restaurant. Appellant and “an adult male” ran from the officers and 

the officers gave chase. Appellant and the adult male “were subsequently caught and 

detained.” The victim‟s cell phone was found near the spot where appellant was 

apprehended. The victim‟s companion identified appellant “during an „infield [sic] lineup.‟” 

Appellant was 17 years old at the time of the events described above. 

 

2 Because the instant appeal is limited to the disposition order of December 12, 

which arose out of appellant‟s second violation of probation, we forgo summary of the 

facts of the underlying offense and the previous probation violation and we limit our 

factual summary to the facts giving rise to the second probation violation. (See People v. 

Glaser (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 819, 821, disapproved on other grounds in People v. 

Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210, 1218–1219, 1225 [“Although an appeal may lie from a 

subsequent order, which revokes probation and places the sentence into effect, the 

matters arising prior to pronouncement of judgment cannot thereby be reviewed”].) Our 

factual summary is taken from the report of the probation officer filed November 14. 
4

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no 

reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.