Opinion
F077320
08-10-2018
In re D.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.M., Defendant and Appellant.
Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16CEJ600753)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly J. Nystrom-Geist, Judge. Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
After appellant D.M. admitted violating his probation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777), the court continued appellant on probation and committed him to juvenile hall for 190 days. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant was adjudged a ward of the court on May 4, 2015, and placed on probation following his adjudication for grand theft from a person, a felony (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, a felony, (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and making criminal threats, a felony (§ 422, subd. (a)). On February 15, 2017, he was continued on probation following his adjudication for receiving a stolen vehicle, a felony (§ 496d, subd. (a)) and resisting arrest, a misdemeanor (§ 148, subd. (a)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. --------
On August 2, 2017, appellant's mother reported that on July 17, 2017, she gave appellant permission to stay at his grandmother's house in Madera with the understanding that he would return home the following day. Appellant, however, did not return home until July 20, 2017. On July 21, 2017, appellant's mother gave appellant permission to go out with friends for an hour, but he did not return home until August 2, 2017, at 1:30 a.m. Later that day, when appellant's mother woke up, he was gone from the residence and his whereabouts remained unknown when she made the report.
On August 4, 2017, the probation department filed a report recommending appellant's probation be revoked because he violated his probation by failing to obey his curfew and to reside in the home of a parent. Also on that date, the court signed an order revoking appellant's probation and the Fresno County District Attorney filed a supplemental petition alleging appellant, who was then 17 years old, violated his probation as alleged in the probation report.
On March 8, 2018, appellant was taken into custody.
On March 9, 2018, appellant admitted violating his probation by failing to obey curfew and by failing to reside in his house.
On March 23, 2018, the court continued appellant on probation, set his maximum term of confinement at six years four months, and committed him to juvenile hall for 190 days. The court also ordered that appellant's probation would end on his birthday or upon his release from juvenile hall.
On April 10, 2018, appellant filed a timely appeal.
Appellant's appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant, has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.