Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J37985
RUVOLO, P. J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
An amended supplemental wardship petition was filed on July 30, 2009, alleging that appellant Jose G. (the minor) came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed a first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). On August 21, 2009, after a contested hearing, the court sustained the petition. At the dispositional hearing held on September 18, 2009, the minor was placed in the care, custody, and control of the probation officer for placement at the New Foundations program, along with other terms and conditions.
The minor has filed an appeal from both the jurisdictional and dispositional findings. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Counsel notes that the minor has been advised that counsel would be filing a brief seeking an independent review and that the minor could personally file his own supplemental brief raising any issues which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No brief has been filed by the minor.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The minor was first adjudged a ward of the juvenile court on December 17, 2007, after he admitted to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (c), possessing more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor. The minor was placed on probation. However, four months later, the minor had already been involved in four additional criminal incidents resulting in his arrest. He continued to reoffend, and the current offense is the minor’s third felony at the age of 15.
The following testimony was presented at the jurisdictional hearing. The victim, 21-year-old Fernando Caro, testified that on July 29, 2009, at around 10:00 p.m., he was “hanging out” in the backyard of his home with a group of people, including the minor. The minor was Caro’s neighbor. At around midnight, the group split up and everyone parted ways. Caro also left his residence. He returned around 5:00 a.m. and found his window open and dirt and leaves on his bed. Caro initially thought his “little niece” might have been in his room. He went to sleep and awoke at about 9:00 a.m. Caro discovered his laptop computer was stolen from his room. He also discovered that his truck, which was parked in the driveway, had its rear window smashed; and the stereo had been removed. His watch and flashlight were also missing.
Caro’s 15-year-old sister testified that she went to bed at around 10:00 p.m. on July 29, 2009. She was awakened at around 12:45 a.m. because she heard noise on the stairway. She saw the minor at her bedroom door using his cell phone to cast light in her room “to see what was there.” She testified she was “like 90 percent sure that it was him.” When the minor saw her, he became startled and turned around and fell down the stairs as he was leaving the house.
Caro confronted the minor about the theft. Initially, the minor denied any involvement. When Caro advised the minor that his sister had seen him in the house, the minor stated that his friends might have been involved in the burglary and that the minor would try to get the stolen items back. Caro reported the burglary to the police when the stolen items were not returned.
The minor presented no evidence or testimony in his defense.
The juvenile court sustained the petition’s allegation that the minor committed first degree residential burglary. The court also sustained the petition’s allegation that this offense is “a violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code [section] 667.5[, subdivision] (c) in that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission” of the burglary.
At the dispositional hearing, the court indicated the minor has “been tried on probation in the custody of his parents and has failed to reform. His welfare requires that custody be taken from his parents.” The court committed the minor to the care, custody, and control of the probation officer for placement at the New Foundations program. The court also imposed additional terms and conditions, including paying an appropriate amount of restitution and serving four weekends at juvenile hall after the minor’s release from New Foundations.
The minor was represented by counsel throughout these proceedings and received fair hearings. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings sustaining the amended supplemental wardship petition filed on July 30, 2009. There was no error in the disposition. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: REARDON, J. SEPULVEDA, J.