Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0702137
Jenkins, J.
This is an appeal from the dispositional order entered after the juvenile court found D.W. (minor) had violated the terms of his probation for a third time and ordered him committed to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (juvenile facility) for a maximum term of confinement of 180 days.
After minor filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende), in which she raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (People v. Kelly).) Counsel attests that minor was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but he has not exercised such right.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende. For reasons set forth below, we agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 27, 2007, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that, on or about November 23, 2007, minor committed four misdemeanor offenses: two counts of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (counts one and two), and two counts of making criminal threats in violation of Penal Code section 422 (counts three and four). Minor thereafter admitted two counts of misdemeanor battery (against his aunt and uncle) and the other counts were dismissed. Following a dispositional hearing on February 14, 2008, minor was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation in the custody of his mother subject to various terms and conditions, including writing a victim’s apology letter and participating in family and individual counseling.
Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
On February 26, 2009, a section 777 notice was filed alleging minor violated the terms of his probation by being suspended from school for disrupting class and failing to write a victim’s apology letter. Minor admitted the probation violation for getting suspended from school and was thereafter retained as a ward, detained in juvenile hall until March 22, 2009, and then placed with his stepfather subject to 90 days of juvenile electronic monitoring (JEM). In addition, minor’s mother was ordered to attend parenting classes.
On December 21, 2009, a second section 777 notice was filed alleging minor violated the terms of his probation by failing to attend anger management counseling, failing to attend school regularly, and being suspended from school for a total of seven days. On April 23, 2010, minor admitted these violations and was thereafter retained as a ward of the court, returned to the home of his mother subject to 60 days of JEM, ordered to complete 30 additional hours of community services, and ordered to attend additional counseling and summer school. Minor’s mother was again ordered to attend parenting classes.
On July 27, 2010, a third section 777 notice, the subject of this appeal, was filed, alleging minor violated the terms of his probation by failing to follow parental instructions in the home, inflicting injury on others, and failing to obey all laws. The allegations in this notice included that minor hit and kicked his 13-year old sister and threw an object at his aunt, requiring medical attention. Based on these events, the police were called and minor was cited for misdemeanor battery.
Minor told his probation officer that his aunt hit him with a bottle, which prompted him to hit her. Minor’s aunt, however, told the probation officer that minor ignored her demands to stop hitting and kicking his sister and then hit her, before she finally hit him with a bottle. At that time, minor chased his aunt upstairs and struck her on the forehead with his fist.
At the July 28, 2010 detention hearing, minor admitted failing to follow parental instructions and the remaining allegations were stricken. A contested dispositional hearing was then held August 26, 2010, after which the juvenile court committed minor to the juvenile facility for the regular 6-month program, with a maximum custody time of 180 days plus an additional 90-day conditional release period. This order was consistent with the recommendation of minor’s probation officer, who reported in anticipation of the hearing that minor’s community adjustment had been poor and that commitment to the juvenile facility would benefit him by offering in-house counseling, more supervision, and a structured school environment. The probation officer also noted, among other things, that neither minor nor his mother had participated in court-ordered counseling. This appeal followed.
At the hearing, mother offered several excuses for her and minor’s failure to attend counseling, including lack of money for bus passes and a busy work schedule.
DISCUSSION
Neither appointed counsel nor minor has identified any issue for our review. Upon our own independent review of the record, we agree none exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The juvenile court found that minor’s commitment to the juvenile facility was appropriate following his admission that he violated the terms of his probation by failing to obey parental instructions. This was the third time minor had been found in violation of the terms of his probation. After the first two incidents, the juvenile court continued minor on probation and placed him in the homes of family members. The third time, however, the juvenile court followed the recommendation of minor’s probation officer and committed minor to the 6-month regular program at the juvenile facility. This decision was within the scope of the juvenile court’s discretion. (See In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396 [a juvenile court’s commitment decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with all reasonable inferences indulged to support its decision].)
Thus, having ensured minor has received adequate and effective appellate review, we affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional order. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 112-113; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s dispositional order of August 26, 2010, is affirmed.
We concur: Pollak, Acting P. J., Siggins, J.