Opinion
A168274
03-22-2024
In re DANIEL R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. DANIEL R., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J2300287)
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
FUJISAKI, J.
Daniel R. appeals from the juvenile court's disposition order adjudging him a ward of the court and placing him on home supervision for 120 days with various conditions, including standard probation conditions and a condition that he participate in the community supervision pathway at the Briones Youth Academy. The court also imposed an electronic search condition requiring Daniel R. to "submit his cell phone and any other electronic device under his control to a search of any medium of communication reasonably likely to reveal whether he is complying with the protective orders and stay away orders as required by the terms of his probation . . . with or without a search warrant."
This disposition followed a juvenile wardship petition charging Daniel R. with six felony counts. Daniel R. pled no contest to one felony count of criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), and thereafter the People moved to dismiss, and the court did dismiss, the remaining charges. When Daniel R. entered his plea, he stipulated that police reports provided the factual basis for the plea. Although those police reports have not been included in the appellate record, the record indicates that the crimes involved Daniel R., at age 17, sending text messages to his girlfriend threatening to kill her and her family, and trying to break a window at her family's home. During his plea hearing, Daniel R. waived his right to appeal from the jurisdiction order.
Counsel for Daniel R. filed a brief raising no issues and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The brief includes counsel's declaration stating that counsel informed Daniel R. that a Wende brief would be filed on his behalf, and that counsel apprised Daniel R. of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. The proof of service accompanying the brief shows counsel served Daniel R. a copy of the brief. More than thirty days have now elapsed, and Daniel R. has not filed a supplemental brief. Mindful of Daniel R.'s waiver of his right to appeal from the jurisdiction order (In re Uriah R. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1160), we have reviewed the record and found no reasonably arguable appellate issue. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Tucher, P.J., Petrou, J.