Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ08009188
Pollak, J.
C.J. appeals from a disposition entered after the juvenile court found true the allegation that she committed one count of felony robbery. Her counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that she had the right to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. Appellant has not filed such a brief.
Background
On February 26, 2008, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that appellant committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), assault with a weapon likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and assault with a stun gun or taser (§ 244.5, subd. (b)). The petition also alleges that appellant used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the course of the robbery. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).)
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
At the jurisdictional hearing, the victim testified that on February 22, 2008, appellant along with two other girls approached her as she was leaving school. Appellant jumped on her back, put her in a headlock, and grabbed her left arm. One of the other girls grabbed her right arm. The victim felt a shock in her left arm but did not see what had caused the shock. The third girl said “hold up, hold up” and took the cell phone from a rope around her neck. The victim reported the incident to her principal and later identified the three girls from a yearbook.
The juvenile court sustained the petition finding true only the robbery allegation. At the dispositional hearing, appellant was placed on probation for five years. The court ordered as conditions of probation, among other things, that appellant stay away from the victim and coparticipants, refrain from the use of drugs and alcohol, and submit to drug testing. Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 729.2, subdivision (b), the court also ordered that appellant and her parents participate in a parenting class as required by her probation officer. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Welfare and Institutions Code section 729.2, subdivision (b) authorizes the court to require as a condition of in-home probation that “the parents or guardian of the minor . . . participate with the minor in a counseling or education program, including, but not limited to, parent education and parenting programs operated by community colleges, school districts, or other appropriate agencies designated by the court or the probation department . . . .”
Discussion
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding with respect to the robbery allegation. The conditions of probation were reasonable and appropriate. (In re Kacy S. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 704, 710 [drug and alcohol testing probation condition regulates criminal conduct and is authorized where drug and alcohol use were not involved in minors’ offense or social histories].) Appellant was effectively represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J. Jenkins, J.