People v. Arthur C. (In re Arthur C.)

Full title: In re Arthur C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Feb 4, 2015

A142381 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2015)

Opinion

In re Arthur C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arthur C., Defendant and Appellant. A142381 California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division February 4, 2015

         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

         Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J13-00061

          MILLER, J.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Defendant Arthur C. appeals from an admission of a probation violation and dispositional order of the Contra Costa County juvenile court. The appeal is authorized by Welfare and Institutions Code section 800. Defendant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief raising no legal issues and has asked this court to conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

         II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On March 20, 2013, Arthur C. was adjudged a ward of the court after he admitted to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle and one count of unlicensed driving. (Veh. Code, §§ 10851, subd. (a) and 12500, subd. (a).) Arthur C. was placed on probation, with requirements that he live with his mother under Home Supervision and submit to Juvenile Electronic Monitoring (JEM).

         On June 27, 2013, and August 15, 2013, Arthur C. violated probation, the first time by cutting off his JEM device, and the second time by dropping a 50 pound weight on it. Each time he admitted these violations and was continued on probation under the same conditions.

         On December 11, 2013, a probation violation notice was again filed. This time, it alleged that Arthur C. was not attending school, was leaving home without permission, and refusing drug testing. He also admitted to smoking marijuana. On December 23, 2013, a probation violation notice was again filed and sustained. On January 24, 2013, the court continued Arthur C.’s wardship and placed him at the Hanna Boys Center. Arthur C. was required, as a condition of probation, to finish two semesters there and follow the program’s rules.

         After Arthur C. left the program without permission, a probation violation notice was filed on June 3, 2014. Arthur C. admitted this violation.

         On June 27, 2014, the court held a contested dispositional hearing. An expert witness testified on Arthur C.’s behalf that he should be returned to his mother’s home with conditions that included intensive mental health treatment. After observing that Arthur C. was in “need of extensive services” and would not succeed if released to home supervision, the court continued him as a ward of the court and ordered that he be removed from the care and custody of his parents and committed to an appropriate placement.

         A timely notice of appeal of this order was filed on July 8, 2014.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Arthur C. was at all times represented by competent counsel who protected his rights and interests.

         The disposition is authorized by law and our review of the record indicates that it does not constitute an abuse of discretion by the juvenile court.

         Our independent review reveals no arguable issues that require further briefing.

         IV. DISPOSITION

         The judgment is affirmed.

          We concur: Richman, Acting P.J., Stewart, J.