Opinion
A156753
12-30-2019
In re ETHAN L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ETHAN L., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J1800780)
Ethan L. appeals from a dispositional order reinstating his probation with additional conditions after he was found to have violated probation. Assigned appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues, and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A.
In July 2018, Ethan damaged a golf course green while riding a motorcycle. The Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleging Ethan, who was 16 years old, committed two misdemeanors: vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1); count one) and driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count two). He pled no contest to count one, and count two was dismissed. In October 2018, Ethan was declared a ward of the court and placed on probation in his mother's custody. Among other conditions of probation, Ethan was ordered to spend 90 days on home supervision, complete 60 hours of community service, abstain from knowing use or possession of illegal drugs, and submit to drug and alcohol testing.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
Almost two months later, Ethan tested positive for cocaine and the Probation Department noticed a probation violation (§ 777) hearing. At a contested hearing on the probation violation, Ethan denied knowingly ingesting cocaine and testified a friend had, three days before his drug test, given him a glass of water that tasted "fishy" and left Ethan with a sore throat, headache, and trouble sleeping. Ethan admitted, on cross-examination, having used cocaine before his probation. The juvenile court found Ethan violated the conditions of his probation and that his testimony was not credible.
The court noted it had the authority to impose up to 360 days of confinement, continued Ethan's wardship, reinstated his probation subject to its previous orders, and ordered Ethan to spend four days in juvenile hall, be subject to 60 additional days on home supervision, and complete the REACH program.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel has filed a Wende brief raising no issues, Ethan has been advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, and Ethan has not filed such a brief. We have independently reviewed the record for potential error and identified no arguable issues.
Ethan was at all times represented by counsel, and there is no indication that counsel was ineffective. Ethan received a fair hearing at the contested probation violation hearing. In making evidentiary rulings at that hearing, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion. (See People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1113, disapproved on another point in People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151.) Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding Ethan violated the conditions of his probation. (See § 777, subd. (c); People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848-849.) The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion at disposition. (See In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 411.)
We have identified no issues that require briefing.
DISPOSITION
The order finding Ethan violated his probation and the dispositional order are affirmed.
/s/_________
BURNS, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
SIMONS, Acting P. J. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J.