Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0800446
Pollak, J.
C.R. appeals from an order of the juvenile court finding that he had violated the terms of his probation and placing him in a rehabilitation facility. The minor’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. C.R. was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief. After independently reviewing the record, we find no error or cause for further briefing and therefore shall affirm.
Background
A juvenile wardship petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) on March 18, 2008, alleging that C.R. had committed misdemeanor grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) by stealing a cell phone from a classmate. He was released to his parents. At a contested jurisdiction hearing on July 3, the court sustained the allegation and placed the minor on electronic monitoring. At the disposition hearing on August 6, C.R. was made a ward with no termination date and placed on electronic monitoring for an additional 30 days, beginning on August 19. He was ordered to spend six days in juvenile hall with credit for six days in custody. He was also ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and pay $397.03 in restitution to the victim, write a letter of apology, and have no contact with her.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
On February 13, 2009, a notice of probation violation was filed pursuant to section 777 alleging that C.R. was suspended from school on December 18 and again on January 29, and that he was failing to obey the rules at home. The report states that the probation officer had “addressed the minor’s school behavior... and his need to follow rules at his mother’s home on at least five times. To date, the minor is not making any adjustment. In fact, [the minor] continues to ignore his school responsibilities and talk back to his teacher. At home, [the minor] continues to have difficulty with his mother, is known to be argumentative, defiant, manipulative and have an overall negative attitude.” The report also states that although the minor continued to test negative for drug use, he had not completed individual counseling or community service and had not written the apology letter or paid restitution to the victim.
The order setting the conditions for minor’s wardship adopts the recommendation of the probation report that minor “attend/participate in any and all counseling directed by the P.O.”At the disposition hearing the court stated that minor “must attend and participate in the program of counseling as directed by your probation officer.”
On March 1, 2009, C.R. admitted the probation violation and the court sustained the violation. The minor’s attorney argued that he had presented a letter of apology that day and that C.R.’s parents were trying to find a new school for him because he had a bad relationship with the teacher at his current school. She argued that the focus on finding a new school had prevented him from getting individual counseling. The court noted that the minor was at a different school with a different teacher at the time of the disposition order and that he was expelled from that school after receiving grades of D’s and F’s. The minor had also been placed in detention at the first school for unexcused absences and tardiness and had been suspended twice for defiant behavior. The court also observed that minor had been on electronic monitoring previously. The probation officer noted that the letter of apology began by denying involvement in the theft. The juvenile court ordered, “given his history,” that C.R. be detained at juvenile hall pending placement at Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for 180 days, followed by a 90-day conditional release/parole period. C.R. timely noticed an appeal from this order.
Discussion
Section 777 provides: “An order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a minor from the physical custody of a parent... and directing placement in a foster home, or commitment to a private institution or commitment to a county institution... shall be made only after a noticed hearing. [¶] (a) The notice shall be made as follows: [¶]... [¶] (2) By the probation officer or the prosecuting attorney if the minor is a court ward or probationer under Section 602 in the original matter and the notice alleges a violation of a condition of probation not amounting to a crime. The notice shall contain a concise statement of facts sufficient to support this conclusion.”
The notice in this case complied with the requirements of section 777. The violations alleged did not amount to crimes, and the notice provided a statement of the alleged violations.
The notice of appeal states that “[t]here was no meaningful finding under 726 that the minor should be removed from the home as this was not the recommendation made by probation. The court abused its discretion in making this order.” Section 726, subdivision (a) provides: “In all cases in which a minor is adjudged a ward... of the court, the court may limit the control to be exercised over the ward... by any parent or guardian and shall in its order, clearly and specifically set forth all those limitations, but no ward or dependent child shall be taken from the physical custody of a parent... unless upon the hearing the court finds one of the following facts: [¶]... [¶] (2) That the minor has been tried on probation while in custody and has failed to reform.” A finding that the minor has violated probation “is essentially the same finding as... of section 726 which permits removal from parental custody when a court finds: ‘That the minor has been tried on probation in such custody and has failed to reform.’ ” (In re Robert M. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d812, 819.) Thus, C.R.’s admission that he violated the terms of his probation was sufficient to support removal from his parents’ custody under section 726. There was ample additional evidence that C.R. was not performing well on probation, including his continued denial of responsibility for the original offense and poor performance at school.
The minor was at all times represented by competent counsel. Nothing in the record suggests that the juvenile court abused its authority in changing the conditions of his wardship to impose detention outside the home.
Disposition
The order of the juvenile court is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J., Jenkins, J.