Opinion
A157113
09-16-2019
In re J.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Marin County Super. Ct. No. JV26739C)
Appellant J.A., born November 2001, was declared a ward of the court following her admission to a charge of giving false identification to a peace officer. The juvenile court ultimately directed that she be placed in a group home after she admitted a subsequent shoplifting charge and then again violated probation by absconding from a residential substance abuse treatment program and removing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. Appellant's counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In November 2018, a Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602, subdivision (a) juvenile wardship petition was filed in Marin County Superior Court, alleging shoplifting (Pen. Code § 459.5, subd. (a)), giving false identification to a peace officer (Pen. Code § 148.9, subd. (a)), and two counts of resisting arrest (Pen. Code § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The allegations were primarily based on an October incident during which appellant stole a bottle of alcohol from a grocery store and refused to cooperate when confronted by a police officer. Appellant was found unsuitable for informal probation and she admitted to the allegation of giving false identification to a peace officer. The juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed her in her mother's custody on probation.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
In December 2018, a second section 602, subdivision (a) petition was filed, alleging one count of resisting arrest and two counts of shoplifting. The allegations were based on an incident during which appellant attempted to steal a bottle of alcohol from a store and was found in possession of alcoholic beverages stolen from two other stores. Appellant admitted to one count of misdemeanor shoplifting. The juvenile court returned appellant to probation with an order to participate in a residential substance abuse treatment program.
On January 15, 2019, appellant absconded from her residential treatment program after less than a day in the program, and she cut off her electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. Appellant admitted the violation of probation. At a February dispositional hearing, the probation department informed the juvenile court that there were no other treatment programs available to appellant. The court declined to follow the probation department's recommendation to return appellant to her mother's care, commenting to appellant, "I don't think that my returning you to your mother is giving you the opportunity for reformation and rehabilitation." The maximum time for confinement was set at 360 days and appellant was put into the custody of the probation officer for placement in a "suitable home or group home."
The record before the juvenile court showed that appellant had a very traumatic childhood, that she had a great deal of conflict with her mother and her mother's current husband, and that mother had apparent untreated mental health issues. Regarding appellant's mother, the probation department had commented in a November 2018 report, "It appears that [mother] could benefit from intensive mental health evaluation and ongoing counseling to address her own trauma, abuse, and suspected underlying mental health issues. Until she does, it is doubtful that she will be able to provide [appellant] with proper guidance, structure, and nurturing that she has been lacking." The probation department also observed in the same report, "[Appellant] is not criminally oriented. She is attempting to escape what appears to be a very tragic and unhealthy home life. In doing so[,] however, [appellant] is making poor choices that are resulting in delinquency and increased law enforcement contact. If [appellant] continues to [run away] from home, defying all authorities that attempt to intervene, [t]he probation department will be forced to recommend out of home placement."
In March 2019, appellant requested the juvenile court to modify its previous orders, because she was scheduled to have surgery in May to correct a difference in the lengths of her legs. The district attorney reported that appellant's doctor said it was in her "best interests to get this procedure done." The juvenile court found that, because the surgery was "elective," it did not take precedence over "the reformation and/or rehabilitation that [appellant] so desperately needs." The court observed there was only a limited opportunity to provide appellant services because she would soon be turning 18.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal in April 2019 that encompassed the juvenile court's February dispositional order and March denial of modification.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record and have found no arguable appellate issues.
Appellant was represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings at issue on appeal and there is no indication in the record that counsel was ineffective. In light of appellant's poor performance on probation and the unsuitability of her mother's home, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in removing her from her mother's care and placing her in a foster or group home. In light of the urgent need to break appellant's pattern of misconduct while she was still a juvenile, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to modify its orders so appellant could obtain elective surgery, which the court reasonably could have inferred would have interfered with appellant's rehabilitation program.
Appellate counsel advised appellant of her right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court's attention any issue she believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
/s/_________
SIMONS, Acting P.J. We concur. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. /s/_________
BURNS, J.