Opinion
A152758
06-14-2018
In re C.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.H., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J15-00827)
C.H., a ward of the court, appeals from a September 2017 dispositional order ordering her into placement. C.H.'s appointed counsel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Having reviewed the record, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Wardship and Prior Probation Violations
In 2015, C.H., then 13 years old, admitted vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)) and giving false information to a police officer (§ 148.5). The court declared wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), ordered placement, and set various terms of probation. C.H. was placed at Crossroads Treatment Program. In 2016, C.H. violated probation and was terminated from the program based on her "lack of respect of authority and non-compliant behaviors." The court ordered placement in another program; C.H. violated probation by refusing to attend that program. The court committed C.H. to the Girls in Motion program at juvenile hall. In 2017, the court released C.H. on home supervision for 60 days. While on home supervision, C.H. violated probation by being suspended from school and leaving home without permission. The court released C.H. to her grandmother's care, with various conditions.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
September 2017 Probation Violation and Disposition
In September 2017, C.H. admitted violating probation by failing to attend school and leaving home without permission, and by removing her ankle monitor. The probation department recommended continuing C.H. on probation, on the condition she serve additional time on home supervision and three weekends in juvenile hall. The prosecutor agreed with the recommendations.
At the September 2017 dispositional hearing, the court reviewed a letter written by C.H. accepting responsibility for her actions and expressing a desire to "turn [her] life around" at home. After reviewing the chronology of C.H.'s probation violations, the court declined to place C.H. on home supervision. The court concluded C.H.'s grandmother could not control her, and that C.H. only did "well" when she was in custody. The court noted the treatment options available in custody. It ordered C.H. into placement, and continued wardship with no termination date.
DISCUSSION
C.H.'s appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and informed C.H. of her right to file a supplemental brief. C.H. has not filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Jones. P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Needham, J. /s/_________
Bruiniers, J.