Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. FJ36801, Shep Zebberman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Ebony S. appeals from an order modifying conditions of probation by adding five days of “JAWS time.” Previously, she had been declared a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon her admission that she committed a second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). She was placed home on probation under certain terms and conditions.
Juvenile Alternative Work Services program.
On June 13, 2006, a notice of violation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 was filed in juvenile court alleging that appellant failed to obey the orders of the court and the probation officer, having failed to submit proof of completion of a community service program, substance abuse counseling, and individual, family, anger management and gang diversion counseling. It was also reported that appellant had tested positive for marijuana metabolite on all of her drug tests.
On July 7, 2006, appellant admitted the probation violations. She remained released to her parents on a Community Detention Program.
On July 25, 2006, appellant was ordered removed from the home of her parents.
On July 28, 2006, appellant was released to her parents on the Community Detention Program. She was ordered to be drug tested randomly twice per month.
On September 28, 2006, the Community Detention Program was ordered terminated.
On January 25, 2007, appellant appeared in court for a progress report hearing. The court indicated it had read and considered the probation officer’s report dated January 25, 2007 and received it into evidence. Additionally, the court noted that it had proof of completion of counseling and parenting classes. It noted it did not have any school grades and that it had a report of a dirty test for marijuana in December 2006. Thereafter, the court ordered the home on probation order to remain in full force and, over appellant’s objection, “five days of jaws.” The court advised if there were “more dirty tests” appellant could expect to go back into custody.
Appellant argued that before the court could make a finding she violated her probation by using illegal substances and before imposing five days of JAWS, she was entitled to a hearing. The court noted it had a report and a drug test and questioned whether appellant wished to contest the test results. Counsel stated “in terms of punishment.” The court advised that the instant proceeding was the hearing and that was “what information in the progress reports are for.”
Appellant filed an appeal claiming the court abused its discretion by imposing the five days of JAWS without a hearing or receiving evidence in addition to the probation officer’s report.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On November 14, 2007, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. After appellant was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and chose not to contest the drug test results, the juvenile court was permitted to make any reasonable order concerning her conduct. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.) Notice and hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institution Code section 777 were not required in that removal of appellant from the physical custody of her parent was not sought. The record is silent as to any specifics of the JAWS program and appellant has failed to demonstrate the order of five days of JAWS time was not reasonable. Appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against her in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J., MANELLA, J.