Opinion
A144056
07-30-2015
In re E.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.A., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J41505)
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant E.A. appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings following a contested hearing held on December 22, 2014, relating to the above-identified juvenile delinquency matter. Appellant's counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court's attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
II.
BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2014, the Solano County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) petition alleging that appellant violated Penal Code section 459 (first degree residential burglary). A contested hearing on the petition was held on December 22, 2014. At the conclusion of the evidence, the juvenile court found that the allegation had been proven, and appellant was ordered into home detention with electronic monitoring pending further disposition. The matter was referred to the probation department for its recommendation, and continued to January 7, 2015.
Because this appeal only concerns the disposition which followed a hearing on December 22, 2014, we need not chronicle appellant's entire history in the juvenile delinquency court system. Suffice to say that the first petition of which we are aware was filed on June 13, 2012, which resulted in a true finding that appellant had committed a misdemeanor sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (e)(1)). A subsequent petition was filed on August 8, 2014, alleging appellant violated the terms of his probation by failing to obey his curfew, a violation he subsequently admitted. --------
On January 9, 2015, the juvenile court continued appellant as a ward of the court, reinstated probation, and released him to the custody of his mother. The court determined the maximum period of confinement was six years four months. The court further sentenced appellant to 103 days in juvenile hall, but allowed 60 days to be served on electronic monitoring. He received credit for 43 days. New terms of probation were ordered consistent with the offense and appellant's juvenile justice history.
A notice of appeal was timely filed on January 15, 2015.
III.
CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON INDEPENDENT RECORD REVIEW
Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. The true finding made at the December 22, 2014 hearing was supported by the evidence presented, and we discern no error in the disposition. The disposition appellant received, including the calculation of the maximum period of confinement, the actual time of confinement imposed, the calculation of confinement credit, imposition of restitution fine, and conditions of probation imposed were chosen by the juvenile court in accordance with applicable juvenile law principles, and were supported by the law and facts. At all times appellant was represented by counsel.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
RUVOLO, P. J.
We concur: /s/_________
REARDON, J.
/s/_________
RIVERA, J.