Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. JV32603
Duffy, J.
In February 2007, a petition was filed alleging that D.D., a minor (16 years old at the time of the initial jurisdictional hearing), came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The minor admitted the allegations of the petition. In two later petitions, it was alleged that the minor had committed two second degree robberies in October 2008, in violation of Penal Code sections 211-212.5, subdivision (c); in one of the petitions, it was alleged that the minor personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The minor ultimately admitted one count of robbery alleged in an amended petition, and the court committed the minor to the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facilities Enhanced Ranch Program (Ranch Program) for a term of six to eight months.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
The minor filed a timely appeal. We will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In February 2007, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), with the juvenile court below (Petition A), alleging that the minor, committed a felony, namely, theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). It was alleged further in Petition A that the minor committed a misdemeanor, i.e., giving false information to a peace officer (§ 148.9). While Petition A was pending, the minor was diagnosed with Bipolar II disorder. The minor admitted the allegations of Petition A on April 10, 2007, the court found that the maximum term to which the minor could be confined was three years and two months, and declared the minor a ward of the court. She was initially placed in a group home, but was later released from that program and placed on the Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP).
For the sake of clarity, we adopt the sequential lettering system of the petitions filed in this matter found in the record and the opening brief.
In September 2007, the minor admitted that she had violated the terms of her probation as specified in a notice of probation violation (Petition B). The ground stated in the notice of violation was the minor’s failure to comply with the group home’s rules and regulations. She was accepted into the juvenile mental health program. She was enrolled in “wraparound services” through Eastfield Ming Quong (EMQ).
In June 2008, the minor received a second notice of probation violation (Petition C). The grounds stated in the notice of violation were attendance problems at school and at substance abuse counseling, failure to submit to drug testing, and positive drug and alcohol test results. At that time, the minor’s mother reported that the minor’s “behavior was out of control.” In July 2008, the minor admitted the probation violation (Petition C), and she was returned to EMP at that time.
In December 2008, the minor received a third notice of probation violation (Petition D). The grounds stated in the notice of violation were the minor’s failure to complete required community service, possession of empty alcohol containers, attendance problems at EMQ and at substance abuse counseling, failure to report to the probation department, and failure to abide by school regulations (i.e., forcibly taking a classmate’s cell phone, resulting in her suspension). She was again placed on EMP. The minor ultimately admitted the probation violation alleged in Petition D.
On December 8, 2008, the district attorney’s office filed a second wardship petition (Petition E), alleging that on October 19, 2008, the minor committed second degree robbery (§ 211-212.5, subd. (c)), by taking money from two individuals. It was further alleged that the minor used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). According to a police report, the minor approached two victims at a McDonald’s parking lot, brandished a knife, and demanded that they turn over their money and debit cards; both victims, out of fear, gave the minor cash.
Also in December 2008, the District Attorney’s Office filed a third wardship petition (Petition F), alleging that on October 17, 2008, the minor committed second degree robbery (§ 211-212.5, subd. (c)), in that she took a cell phone from the person of another and against that person’s will by means of force or fear. The police report of the incident indicated that while the victim was standing in line at the high school cafeteria, the minor approached her from behind, hit her on the left side of the face, grabbed the cell phone from the victim’s hand, and ran away.
On December 29, 2008, Petition F was amended to add a second count that alleged a single robbery count and encompassed both the October 17 and October 19 incident dates and the two victims from Petition E and the one victim from the first count of the original Petition F. The minor admitted the allegations of count 2 of Petition F, as amended, and Petition E and count 1 of Petition F were dismissed. The matter was continued to January 14, 2009, for disposition.
At the disposition hearing, the court found the maximum term of confinement to be five years and 10 months. The court deemed the minor to be a ward of the court, and, consistently with the recommendation of the probation officer, committed her to the Ranch Program for a period of six to eight months. The minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent the minor in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which stated the case and the facts but raised no specific issues or argument and urged that this court conduct an independent review of the record. In counsel’s brief, she identified, without arguing the point, that this court might consider the issue of whether the court abused its discretion in removing the minor from her home and committing her to the Ranch Program. We notified the minor defendant of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf within 30 days. This period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from the minor; however, we did receive a letter from the minor’s mother, which we have considered.
In considering the matters described in the letter, we express no opinion as to whether the minor’s mother has standing to raise arguments on appeal on behalf of her daughter.
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97. Based upon that review, we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J., McAdams, J.