Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0900120
RUVOLO, P. J.
Appellant D.L. appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel submitted a declaration stating that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
A petition was on January 21, 2009, filed seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), and alleged that he committed one count of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b) (count one)), and one count of petty theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 488 (count two)).
All further dates are in the calendar year 2009, unless otherwise indicated.
All further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
On January 27, appellant admitted the offense alleged in count two, and count one was dismissed. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Contra Costa County Alternative Defender Office, and on February 23, appellant was adjudged a ward of the court, and released to the home of his mother.
On April 24, the probation department filed a notice pursuant to section 777 alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his probation by missing school on several occasions, and by testing positive for marijuana. On May 11, appellant admitted the violation and was continued a ward of the court, while being placed on 60 days JEM (Juvenile Electronic Monitoring). He remained in the custody of his mother.
On June 4, a subsequent notice of probation violation was filed, alleging that appellant was again missing school, and that he left his mother’s home without permission, and while on JEM supervision. At a hearing held on June 22, appellant admitted the violations, and the court ordered that he be detained in juvenile hall until June 27, at which time he would be released again into the custody of his mother and remain on JEM supervision.
A supplemental petition was filed on August 18 (§ 602, subd. (a)), alleging that on August 15, appellant committed a felony by taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and also committed the felony of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)). The supplemental petition further alleged that appellant had unlawfully resisted arrest on the same date. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).)
Appellant thereafter admitted the truth of the allegation in count one of the supplemental petition. In so doing, appellant agreed to waive his constitutional rights to a jurisdictional hearing, including, among other things, his right to produce and examine witnesses, and to remain silent. The matter was continued to September 28 for a dispositional hearing. Appellant was released to the custody of his parents on JEM pending disposition.
Before the disposition hearing was held, a new section 777 notice of probation violation was filed alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his JEM supervision by leaving his home without permission. Appellant admitted the new violation, and the court ordered that he be detained in juvenile hall pending the disposition hearing set for September 28.
On September 28, the court ordered that the dispositional hearing be continued to October 14. In the meantime, the court ordered that the probation department contact appellant’s father and interview him to determine if a placement with father was feasible. The probation department at that point was on record as recommending a six-month placement at the Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (the Ranch).
A subsequent report by the probation department reported on its interview with appellant’s father. The department concluded that a placement with father was not in appellant’s interest. At the dispositional hearing held on October 14, the court continued appellant as a ward of the court, and ordered that he be committed to the Ranch for its regular six-month program. Appellant was also ordered to undergo a psychological assessment. Other conditions of probation were imposed.
We have reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the dispositional hearings, and have concluded the jurisdictional findings were supported by the evidence. There was no error in the disposition, as it was fully supported factually, and was chosen by the trial judge in accordance with applicable juvenile law principles. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and we have concluded there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: REARDON, J.RIVERA, J.