Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. 32780-J
Ruvolo, P. J.
Matthew H., a minor, appeals from a juvenile disposition entered by the juvenile court on December 8, 2006, disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
All dates are in the calendar year 2006, unless otherwise indicated.
A petition was filed on February 15, seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 600 et seq.), and alleged a misdemeanor count of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). After waiving his rights, appellant admitted the violation on March 15, and he was placed on probation and returned to his mother’s home.
The following month, another petition was filed by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office alleging violations of four criminal statutes: being under the influence of a drug or alcohol (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)), possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)), falsely identifying himself to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)). After waiving his rights, appellant admitted violations of being under the influence and falsely identifying himself to a police officer. He was placed on probation and returned to his mother’s home, with conditions.
A probation violation notice was filed by the probation department on August 14, alleging that appellant had left home without permission in violation of the terms of his probation. At a subsequent hearing, appellant admitted the truth of the allegation, and appellant was remanded to juvenile hall upon a finding that continuation of probation in the parents’ home would be contrary to the welfare of the minor.
A subsequent probation violation notice (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777) was filed by the probation department alleging that appellant was away from his mother’s home for several days without permission, and that he was truant from school. Before that probation violation could be adjudicated, an amended notice of probation violation was filed adding an allegation that on October 26, appellant tested positive for marijuana. Appellant subsequently admitted all three probation allegations at a hearing on November 7. He was continued on probation and released again to his mother’s custody.
Another probation violation notice was filed on November 20, alleging that appellant tested positive for alcohol with a blood alcohol level of .12 percent. He also continued to be truant from school. He admitted the violations on November 22, and he was ordered detained in juvenile hall. At the disposition hearing on December 8, 2006, because of his continuing problems with supervision, misbehavior, and substance abuse, appellant was ordered to be placed in the probation department’s Departmental Commitment Program (probation camp) for a maximum period of 16 months, less credits of 73 days. He was ordered to juvenile hall until the placement had been accomplished.
At all times throughout the proceeding appellant was represented by counsel. There was no error in the disposition. The trial court’s choice of disposition was supported by substantial evidence. We have concluded that there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Reardon, J., Rivera, J.