Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Napa County Super. Ct. No. JV15253
McGuiness, P.J.
Fourteen-year-old S.V. (appellant) appeals from a dispositional order continuing him as a ward of the juvenile court and imposing additional conditions of probation. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Having done so, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the order.
Factual and Procedural Background
On June 12, 2007, an initial juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging appellant committed assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1) , count one), possessed a deadly weapon (§ 12020, subd. (a), count two), and disturbed the peace by fighting (§§ 415, subd. (1), 186.22, subd. (d), count three). The petition included special allegations as to counts one and two that the offenses were “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further and assist in criminal conduct by gang members.”
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
According to the probation officer’s report, appellant and several associates were involved in a gang-related confrontation with a group of other juveniles believed to be affiliated with a rival gang. “The discussion turned into a shoving match and eventually to a fight.” After a co-participant threatened the other group with a knife, appellant “pulled a previously concealed billy-club sized bat from his pants and hit the victim once, ‘very hard’ on the left hip.” At the time, appellant had been referred to the probation department on two prior occasions. He had also been expelled from school for possessing and furnishing marijuana on campus and had a 26-page student discipline record that included nine suspensions.
Upon appellant’s admission, the court sustained the petition as to count one and the special allegation, and thereafter dismissed the remaining counts and special allegation. The court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation. The conditions of his probation included, among other things, a requirement that appellant not “wear or possess any clothing or other item . . . known by the minor to have gang significance.” Appellant was required to submit to search and seizure of his person, residence and property by any law enforcement or probation officer at any time, without a warrant or reasonable cause.
On April 9, 2008, a petition was filed alleging appellant violated a condition of probation by possessing items and/or photographs known by him to have gang significance. According to the probation department’s detention report, officers conducted a search of appellant’s residence and found, in appellant’s room, a baseball cap that had been adopted by appellant’s gang as an identifier. Appellant’s cell phone contained numerous photographs of gang paraphernalia, and the phone listed his contacts by their gang monikers. Appellant, while represented by counsel who joined in the admission, admitted the violation. The court continued appellant as a ward of the court and, as additional conditions of probation, ordered him to serve 35 days in juvenile hall and wear a global positioning system monitor for 90 days after his release.
Discussion
As required under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note that appellant’s counsel informed appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and that appellant has not filed such a brief.
We conclude there was a factual basis for appellant’s admission that he violated a condition of probation. There is no evidence of good cause to allow appellant to withdraw his admission. Appellant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings and has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal. We have reviewed the “entire record in this case and have found no arguable issues therein.” (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
Disposition
The dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: Siggins, J., Jenkins, J.