Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV33412
McAdams, J.
J.W., a minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order removing him from his uncle’s home and placing him in a group home for drug treatment, after the juvenile court found, on the basis of the minor’s admission, that he had violated his probation by failing to attend school on a regular basis and testing positive for marijuana. His appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts, raises no issues, and asks us to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Appellant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Therefore, we will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2007, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that 13-year-old J.W. committed three misdemeanors: (1) threatening a school employee, (2) defacing a wall with graffiti, causing less than $400 damage, and (3) possessing less than 28.5 grams of marijuana. (Pen. Code, §§ 71, subd. (1); 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A); Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b).)
On September 26, 2007, a second petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that J.W. had committed a petty theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 484-488.) The petition gave notice that the People intended to seek aggregation at disposition.
According to the probation report, defendant told the principal of his middle school to “get out of my face fool” while cocking his fist at her when she told him he could be suspended for “rough housing” with another student. J.W. and two others admitted to police officers who were investigating a graffiti report that they had spray-painted the walls of a bridge. J.W. had a can of black spray paint in his hands when he was detained. Police saw defendant trying to cross Highway 101 and offered him a ride home. When the police searched J.W. before letting him get into the police car, they found marijuana and a glass pipe. J.W. fled from a mall store with a hat he did not pay for.
On October 26, 2007, J.W. admitted the allegations of the first petition. The second petition (alleging petty theft) was dismissed with the understanding that it could be considered by the court at disposition. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.) On January 23, 2008, J.W. was declared a ward of the court, returned to the home of his uncle, and placed on probation under the supervision of the probation officer on various terms and conditions, including the following: (1) that he “attend school regularly with no unexcused absences or tardies;” (2) that he “not use, possess, or be under the influence of alcohol or any form of controlled or illegal substance without the legal right to do so, and submit to drug and substance abuse testing as directed by the Probation Officer;” (3) that he not possess weapons; and (4) that he submit his person, property, or vehicle to search and seizure by school officials while on the school campus or during school events.
On July 9, 2008, the probation department filed a notice of a probation violation alleging that J.W. had failed to attend school on a regular basis in that he had 11 unexcused absences from school and had incurred five “cuts.” The notice also alleged that defendant had returned nine urinalysis tests that were positive for marijuana. J.W. admitted the probation violation allegations on August 19, 2008. That same day, the court found the allegations of the petition true and continued J.W. as a ward of the court, adopted the recommendations of the probation report, and approved J.W.’s placement outside the home for “intensive services,” including “a drug treatment program” and “intensive counseling.”
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record on appeal. Our independent review of the record discloses that there are no arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Therefore, we will affirm the juvenile court’s order.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR Rushing, P.J., Duffy, J.