Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. OJ06003528
Sepulveda, J.
S.D. appeals from an order declaring her a ward of the juvenile court and ordering her placed with her mother on home supervision. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) Her counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After review of the record, we find no error and find sufficient evidence to sustain the juvenile court’s findings and affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The minor first came into the delinquency system in 2006, when she was made a ward of the court and placed on electronic monitoring after she vandalized her mother’s home. After violating the terms of her electronic monitoring, she was placed in various different group homes (four different ones, to be exact), and once in her mother’s home, in the ensuing years, from which homes she consistently absconded. After leaving the last of these group homes in 2007, she was arrested for soliciting prostitution (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (b)), admitted the allegation in juvenile court, and was placed in yet another group home, from which she again absconded. After she was arrested following her last absconding, a petition charging the minor with loitering to commit prostitution (Pen. Code, § 653.22, subd. (a)) was filed; it is that petition which is the subject of this appeal. The allegation was found true after a contested jurisdictional hearing and the minor was ultimately released to her mother on home supervision. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
At the contested jurisdictional hearing, a Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff testified that he observed the minor in a low-cut shirt and “very short shorts” walking up and down Long Beach Boulevard, contacting lone male drivers. He watched her engage in this conduct for approximately 15 minutes and then approached her and asked what she was doing. The minor replied that she was “working.” The deputy took this to be a reference to prostitution and advised her of her Miranda rights. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.) After waiving her rights, the minor informed the deputy that she had been working in this location for a half hour, but had not yet had a “date.” She admitted that she had been previously arrested in Southern California for prostitution. She specifically admitted working as a prostitute that day on Long Beach Boulevard and was arrested.
The minor’s last placement before the crime leading to the current petition was in a group home in Los Angeles County.
The minor testified in her own behalf and indicated that she had been “prostituting [her]self” on Long Beach Boulevard, but said she had only been working the area for five minutes and was not contacting drivers when the deputy approached her. She claimed a different officer Mirandized her.
Ample evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding of true on the allegation that the minor was loitering to commit prostitution in violation of Penal Code section 563.22, subdivision (a). The minor was represented by counsel and received a fair hearing. There was no error in the juvenile court’s disposition. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.
If anything, the juvenile court’s dispositional order placing the minor once again with her mother was overly generous, given her long history of absconding both from her mother’s court-ordered supervision and from group home placements.
DISPOSITION
The orders continuing the minor as a ward of the court and placing her under her mother’s supervision are affirmed.
We concur: Reardon, Acting P.J., Rivera, J.