Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 0J05001325
Bruiniers, J.
Appellant seeks review of a dispositional order of the juvenile court, challenging both the jurisdictional determination and ultimate commitment to a county ranch facility. Appellant was determined to be a ward of the court after an evidentiary hearing on an allegation in a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 of sale of base cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)).
Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende brief, certifying that counsel has been unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also has submitted a declaration confirming that appellant has been advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) We find no arguable issues and therefore affirm.
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see also In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.
Background
On February 24, 2009, appellant was charged by Juvenile Wardship Petition with a felony violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on March 17, 2009.
Undercover Oakland Police Officer Marcell Patterson testified that on February 21, 2009, he observed appellant engage in what he believed, based on his training and experience, to be a narcotics transaction in the 3200 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland. Patterson, from a position about 20 feet away, saw appellant in conversation with an older male. After a brief exchange, the older male handed appellant money, and appellant opened his right hand to reveal what Patterson recognized as “twists” of rock cocaine. The older man took three of the twists from appellant’s hand. As he walked away he was arrested by Officer Malcolm Miller, and the twists containing the suspected narcotics were recovered from his person. Appellant was arrested in the area shortly thereafter and was identified by Patterson both at the scene and in the courtroom. The items seized from the buyer were analyzed by Oakland Police Department Criminalist Waliana Dieu and determined to contain cocaine base.
A “twist” is a small object wrapped in plastic with a knot at the end.
Appellant’s trial counsel challenged the prosecution’s failure to formally offer Dieu as an expert. The court found the witness qualified as an expert based on her education, training, and experience.
At the time of this charged offense, appellant was a ward of the court as a result of a prior petition, filed on December 8, 2008, alleging his commission of three related felony firearms offenses (Pen. Code §§ 12101, subd. (a)(1); 12025, subd. (a)(2); 12031, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant admitted a violation of Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a)(1), and the other allegations were dismissed. Appellant’s maximum term of confinement was determined to be three years, with custody credits of 20 days. On February 3, 2009, appellant was ordered placed in the Menezes Group Home. Appellant left the group home without authorization on February 12, 2009, resulting in a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 for a more restrictive placement, and the issuance of a bench warrant for his arrest. That petition was dismissed following the findings on the instant petition.
Appellant had originally been determined to be a ward of the court on June 9, 2005, on his admission to a petition charging him with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). His probation on this petition was revoked on June 20, 2006, following allegations that he had committed two subsequent robberies. On October 10, 2006, he absconded from his placement in Boys Republic. On April 12, 2007, he admitted the allegations of a subsequent petition that he falsely identified himself to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9). On this occasion he was able to graduate from Boys Republic and the wardship petition was ultimately dismissed, and probation terminated, on December 3, 2007.
At the dispositional hearing on the instant petition, on April 1, 2009, the maximum term of confinement was set at 68 months, and appellant was placed in Camp Wilmont Sweeney. A timely notice of appeal was filed on April 9, 2009.
Discussion
Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings. Section 730 of the Welfare and Institutions Code authorizes the juvenile court to place a delinquent ward under the care, custody, and control of the probation officer by a camp placement order. A juvenile court’s commitment order may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing the court abused its discretion. “ ‘ “We must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is substantial evidence to support them.” ’ [Citation.]” (In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1330.) Substantial evidence supports the placement decision made, and no abuse of discretion is shown.
“When a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that he or she is a person described by Section 602 [of the Welfare and Institutions Code], the court... may commit the minor to a juvenile... camp.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, subd. (a).)
No arguable issues are presented.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, Acting P. J., Needham, J.