Opinion
A157540
04-07-2020
In re A.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.W., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J19-00202)
A.W. appeals from a disposition order, following his admission of a juvenile probation violation, placing him under home supervision for an additional 60 days. His counsel on appeal has filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record to determine whether any arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) A.W. was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm.
DISCUSSION
Wardship Petition
In February 2019, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship petition alleging A.W. committed second degree burglary of a vehicle, a felony (Pen. Code, § 459). The petition was orally amended at the detention hearing, changing the charge to a misdemeanor. A.W. then admitted the allegation, and pursuant thereto, the juvenile court sustained the petition, and released A.W. to his mother subject to electronic monitoring and certain terms and conditions. The matter was then transferred to Contra Costa County for disposition.
At the disposition hearing, the court adjudged A.W. a ward of the court and placed him on 120 days' home supervision with his mother subject to various terms and conditions, including electronic monitoring and that he "be at his legal residence between the hours of 7 pm and 6 am, unless accompanied by a parent/guardian."
A.W. has appealed from the disposition order, challenging the electronic search condition that was imposed. (In re A.W., A157072.) This appeal has not yet been fully brief.
Probation Violation
A month later, the Probation Department filed a notice of probation violation, alleging A.W. violated the terms of his home supervision by "traveling to the city of Richmond without Probation permission" on the nights of May 12 through May 15 "according to minor's electronic monitoring device." A.W. initially denied the violation.
However, at the pretrial hearing, counsel for A.W. stated he was prepared to admit the violation. The court advised A.W. of his rights, and A.W. admitted the violation. The court found there was a factual basis for his admission.
At the disposition hearing, the court continued him as a ward, ordered him to serve an additional 60 days of home detention, ordered him to participate in certain rehabilitation programs, and continued any prior orders in effect.
Although the court re-imposed the electronic search condition, A.W. was not required to challenge the condition in the instant appeal. (See In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1137-1138.) --------
Our review of the record shows A.W. was advised of his rights in connection with the alleged probation violation, there was a factual basis for his admission of the violation, and he was ably represented by counsel during the probation violation proceedings.
DISPOSITION
Our independent review having found no arguable issues that require further briefing, the disposition order is affirmed.
/s/_________
Banke, J. We concur: /s/_________
Margulies, Acting P.J. /s/_________
Sanchez, J.