Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County No. JJD060576. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge.
Thea Greenhalgh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Harris, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On June 6, 2006, appellant, Marcos G., admitted allegations filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, that he vandalized property valued under $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) for the purpose of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (d)), received stolen property, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), and drove a vehicle without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). The court found count one to be a felony. At the conclusion of the disposition hearing on July 18, 2006, the juvenile court declared Marcos a ward of the court and placed him on probation.
The juvenile court advised Marcos of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea. The court also found a factual basis for Marcos’s admission of the allegations.
Marcos waived his rights to a hearing and admitted violating the terms of his probation on March 6, 2007, by using marijuana and cocaine, possessed gang paraphernalia, failed to attend school, and failed to attend a gang counseling program. At the disposition hearing on March 20, 2007, defense counsel represented that Marcos preferred commitment to a group home. The court followed the recommendation of the probation department and ordered Marcos’s placement into a group home. The court noted Marcos’s maximum term of confinement was three years six months and noted he was entitled to custody credits of 22 days.
On June 18, 2007, after waiving his right to a hearing, Marcos admitted a second violation of probation for possessing gang writings and failing to obey group home rules. The probation department’s report prepared for the disposition hearing noted that Marcos’s first violation of probation occurred when he used marijuana and cocaine, possessed gang paraphernalia, and failed to attend school. Marcos was placed in the Courage Group Home in Exeter, California. Marcos began to progress satisfactorily until May 30, 2007, when he called his probation officer to report that other residents in the program tried to start a fight with him. The probation officer arrived the next day and learned that group home staff were conducting a major search and investigation into gang activity in the program. Marcos’s notebook contained several gang drawings. Marcos told the probation officer that he was trying to stay away from gang activity and wanted to stay out of trouble.
Marcos called his probation officer again on June 4, 2007, to report continuing gang-related problems. On June 6, 2007, the probation officer learned Marcos had drawn dots on his hand and rubbed them off. This angered other residents affiliated with Marcos’s gang. A group home staff member called the probation officer on June 8, 2007, to report that gang members were still trying to “punk” Marcos. This incident was resolved by June 8, 2007. Later, the probation officer learned that both members of Marcos’s gang, as well as of a rival gang, were angry with him for making inflammatory statements. The probation officer received a call from a group home staff member on June 11, 2007, explaining that Marcos’s behavior was worse than ever. Marcos had a non-compliant attitude and continued to antagonize other residents with gang-related behavior. Marcos was also threatening to run away from the program.
In April 2007, Marcos was evaluated by two psychologists. The first psychologist concluded Marcos suffered from aggressive behavior, alcohol abuse, behavioral problems, depression, difficulty with family and in sustaining intimate relationships, drug abuse, irritable moods, low energy, and oppositional behavior. A second psychologist recommended Marcos stay in his current residential treatment facility and participate in mental health, substance abuse, and group counseling.
The probation officer found that placing Marcos back into a group home would be inappropriate because of his failure to comply with group home regulations. The probation officer recommended placing Marcos into the Tulare County Probation Youth Facility to help instill discipline in Marcos and to assist him in becoming a more law abiding citizen. On July 2, 2007, the juvenile court found that placing Marcos into a group home would not be a suitable placement. The court further found Marcos needed long-term rehabilitation because he did not do well in the group home placement. The court followed the probation officer’s recommendation. The court awarded custody credit of 41 days.
Marcos’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Marcos was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on November 6, 2007, we invited Marcos to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
DISCUSSION
We note that there are no obvious or prejudicial errors in appellant’s change of plea hearing. Appellant was fully advised of the consequences of his plea and his constitutional rights. He was further advised of and waived his constitutional rights in open court. Appellant did not appeal from any of the proceedings in 2006. We find nothing to review from those proceedings and appellant did not file a timely appeal from them.
In 2007, appellant was advised of and waived his right to hearings for each of his violations of probation. After the first violation of probation, the court continued appellant in a group home program until his conduct caused his termination from the program. After the second violation of probation, appellant was placed in a local county program after the court rejected the less restrictive alternative of placement in a group home. After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.