Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. JU21747
McAdams, J.
Juvenile delinquency proceedings were instituted against appellant J.E., a minor. The minor seeks review of the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having independently reviewed the entire record, we find no arguable issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the challenged orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2008, a petition was filed against the minor under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. According to the petition, in July 2008, J.E. entered Dartmouth Middle School in San Jose with intent to commit theft. The petition charged him with second-degree burglary, a felony. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b).)
Jurisdiction
A contested jurisdictional hearing was conducted in Santa Clara County in October 2008. At the hearing, a San Jose police officer testified that she saw the minor inside a “locked and gated chain-link fence” used to prevent access to the school’s corridors. The minor was there with a friend, J.W. The minor told the officer that he and his friend were there “to see if they could get into one of the classrooms” at the school, room 306. He told her that “he was looking for whatever they could find to take” from room 306, but they found nothing. Then “they went over into the school office where they attempted to enter by removing screws from around a window.” On later examination of room 306, the officer found “scotch tape over the locking mechanism of the door so it would remain unlocked.” In possession of the minor’s friend J.W., the officer found both scotch tape and screws that appeared to match those from the school office window.
When the minor testified, he denied telling the officer that he went into room 306 to steal. However, he did tell her that he and J.W. “went to the office and [J.W.] started to remove screws from the window.” The minor acknowledged telling the officer that the two “were trying to enter the office.” Despite that, the minor testified, he never intended to enter the office. The minor knew that J.W. intended to steal from the office, and he told J.W. to stop.
At the conclusion of the contested hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.
The matter was then transferred to Santa Cruz County, where the minor resides with his mother during the school year.
Disposition
A disposition hearing was conducted in Santa Cruz County in December 2008. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 706.) The minor was declared a ward of the court, returned to the home of his mother, and placed on probation. The terms and conditions of the minor’s probation include payment of a restitution fine; participation in counseling; completion of both a victim awareness program and 50 hours of community service; and preparation of an apology letter. The minor was also ordered to stay away from Dartmouth Middle School, to not possess “any device known to be an auto theft tool/burglary tools” and to submit himself to a search for burglary tools or stolen property at any time. Victim restitution was ordered, with the amount to be determined later.
Appeal
The minor filed two notices of appeal. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 800.)
On October 31, 2008, the minor filed a notice of appeal from the jurisdictional order. We requested his appellate counsel to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as premature. (See, e.g., In re Eric J. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 624, 627 [“an adjudication order sustaining a section 602 petition is not independently appealable”].) Counsel responded with a request that we exercise our discretion “to await the dispositional hearing and then treat the notice of appeal as being filed immediately upon the entering of the dispositional order.”
On December 19, 2008, the minor filed a second notice of appeal, this one citing both the October 2008 jurisdictional order and the December 2008 dispositional order. (See, e.g., In re Eric J., supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 627 [jurisdictional finding “is subject to review on appeal from the dispositional order”].)
In his brief on appeal, the minor’s counsel requests this court to independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. The minor was advised of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so.
DISCUSSION
We treat this appeal as arising from the minor’s second notice of appeal, dated December 19, 2008. We examine both the jurisdictional and dispositional orders for error. (In re Eric J., supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 627.)
As the California Supreme Court recently confirmed, “the constitutional right to assistance of counsel entitles an indigent defendant to independent review by the Court of Appeal when counsel is unable to identify any arguable issue on appeal.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119, citing People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Under this authority, we have reviewed the entire record on appeal. (People v. Wende, at p. 443; People v. Kelly, at p. 124.)
Our independent review of the record discloses no arguable issues on appeal. We see no basis to question the jurisdictional finding, which is supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053; In re I.M. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1202-1204, 1205.) Nor do we find anything improper in the dispositional orders. Thus, for example, the probation condition prohibiting the minor from possessing “any device known to be an auto theft tool/burglary tools” contains a knowledge requirement and is sufficiently certain. (People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 102; People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 628-629.)
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional findings and the dispositional order are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Mihara, Acting P.J., Duffy, J.