Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Amalia L. Meza, Judge, Super. Ct. No. J204700.
NARES, J.
Cory D. appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court continuing him as a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) following a true finding that he violated several conditions of probation, and placing him in a residential treatment program.
FACTS
In May 2004 the juvenile court sustained a delinquency petition charging Cory, who was then 13 years old, with battery resulting in serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)). On June 17 the court adjudged Cory a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, gave custody and control of Cory to the probation department and placed Cory in his mother's home. The probation conditions required Cory to perform 40 hours of community service, undergo substance abuse treatment and testing, participate in counseling, attend school, observe a curfew and obey his mother's rules and instructions.
Over the next three years, Cory followed a pattern of continually violating his probation conditions.
At all relevant times, Cory suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and bi-polar disorder and was prescribed various medications. Cory had a history of not taking these medications.
In October the court found Cory violated his probation terms by refusing to meet with his probation officer, attend school, follow his mother's rules, observe his curfew, perform his community service and attend his counseling program.
In December Cory threw a canister over the fence during an argument with a neighbor. The canister struck the neighbor in the head. At the next court hearing, Cory was removed from his mother's home and detained in juvenile hall pending placement in a residential treatment facility.
In February 2005 Cory was placed in a residential treatment facility in Valley Center, but after Cory's physician expressed concern, the court vacated the residential treatment placement order. The court placed Cory with his mother. Cory spent six days at the Valley Center facility.
In August 2005 the probation department again reported that Cory was refusing to attend school, observe his curfew, perform his community service, attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and attend scheduled counseling sessions. On August 9 Cory admitted he did not observe his curfew and did not attend school. The court found Cory violated his probation conditions, removed him from his mother's home and placed him in the Breaking Cycles program.
On December 6 Cory entered the Reflections Day Center program (Reflections), a follow up program of Breaking Cycles.
On January 20, 2006, the probation department reported that Cory had several unexcused absences from Reflections and had two positive marijuana tests. As sanctions, Cory was taken into custody for 10 days after the first positive test and placed on home supervision for two weeks after the second positive test. On January 18 Cory had a third positive marijuana test. Cory admitted he left his placement without permission, failed to attend school regularly, violated curfew and used a controlled substance without a valid prescription. The court found Cory violated the terms of his probation and temporarily placed him at Breaking Cycles. Subsequently, Cory was placed in the Rayo program at the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF). Cory completed a satisfactory program at JRF and was released to his mother on April 14, while he waited for an opening in the Reflections program.
In July Cory was arrested for allegedly firebombing an apartment in Lakeside in May. Subsequently, the Reflections staff terminated Cory from the program.
On October 3 Cory admitted he violated probation by being terminated by the Reflections program. The court placed Cory with his mother conditioned on his completion of 30 days of home supervision.
On October 10 the home supervision officer learned that Cory had not been to school for three weeks. The officer found Cory at home and arrested him.
On October 25 after an evidentiary hearing, the court found Cory had violated the terms of his probation. On November 8 the court placed Cory with his mother on the condition he complete 30 days on house arrest with the Electronic Surveillance program.
In January 2007 the probation department reported that Cory was in violation of his probation terms because he was failing all his classes and had unsatisfactory citizenship grades in school, did not attend substance abuse treatment and did not meet with the probation officer.
On January 26 a sheriff deputy contacted Cory because he had not been at school or home for several days. Cory had a methamphetamine pipe in his pocket. Cory was arrested for being under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia and taken to juvenile hall.
On January 30 Cory admitted he left a court-ordered placement without permission, failed to attend school regularly and used or possessed controlled substances. The court found Cory violated his probation conditions and ordered Cory to undergo a psychological evaluation.
The psychologist who evaluated Cory reported Cory's greatest difficulty was his inability to contain his impulses, a condition likely to be exacerbated by substance abuse. The psychologist recommended Cory be placed in a residential treatment facility with a therapeutic setting and be required to participate in a drug program.
On February 28 the court placed Cory in a licensed residential treatment facility.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible, but not arguable issue: whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing Cory in a residential treatment facility.
We granted Cory permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue referred to by appellant's counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Cory on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., McDONALD, J.