Opinion
A152437
06-28-2018
In re J.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.K., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J15-00703)
This is an appeal from the dispositional order issued by the juvenile court on August 28, 2017, in the delinquency case of minor defendant J.K. (hereinafter, defendant). After defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende), in which she raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (People v. Kelly).) Counsel attested that she advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but he has not exercised such right.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende. For reasons set forth below, we agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2015, a third amended petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (petition), alleging that defendant, age 16, had committed the following five felony offenses and one misdemeanor offense: second degree robbery of S.M. on April 21, 2015 (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) (count one); second degree robbery of S.M. and F.D. on May 11, 2015 (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) (count two); assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury to F.D. on May 11, 2015 (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) (count three); making criminal threats to F.D. on May 11, 2015 (Pen. Code, § 422) (count four); dissuading a witness (F.D.) from reporting a crime on May 11, 2015 (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)) (count five); and vandalism causing damage of less than $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A) (count six). As to count six, it was alleged defendant used a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)).
Unless otherwise stated herein, all statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
Defendant subsequently entered into a valid plea agreement wherein he admitted committing the felony offenses charged as counts one and five and the remaining counts and enhancement allegation were dismissed.
On August 11, 2015, the juvenile court declared defendant a ward of the court and committed him to the Youthful Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) for a term not to exceed the maximum custody time of five years eight months, or his attainment of age 21, whichever was to occur first.
On September 21, 2016, at the YOTP review hearing, the juvenile court modified the order of August 11, 2015, and released defendant to YOTP Phase IV, to wit, community supervision and aftercare. The court then released defendant to his mother on home supervision for 90 days with an ankle monitor. Defendant successfully completed the 90 days of home supervision and, on December 19, 2016, he was continued in the YOTP aftercare program.
On March 24, 2017, a notice of probation violation was filed pursuant to section 777, alleging defendant: (1) failed to attend school on four occasions; (2) failed to meet with his probation officer on March 20, 2017; and (3) was suspended from school for one day on March 22, 2017, for defiance and disruption of school activities. At a detention hearing on March 27, 2017, defendant denied these allegations and was released on home supervision with an ankle monitor.
On March 28, 2017, a second notice of probation violation was filed pursuant to section 777, alleging defendant removed his ankle monitoring device without permission, leaving his whereabouts unknown. An arrest warrant issued the same day and, on April 11, 2017, defendant was taken into custody.
On April 18, 2017, defendant admitted the allegations in the March 24, 2017 notice of probation violation, as well as the allegations in the March 28, 2017 notice. The juvenile court thus sustained the allegations in these notices and found defendant in violation of probation. On May 2, 2017, defendant was ordered to serve 45 days on home supervision with an ankle monitor.
On August 9, 2017, a third notice of probation violation was filed pursuant to section 777, alleging defendant: (1) failed to report to the probation department on July 28, 2017, and (2) failed to keep an August 7, 2017 appointment with his probation officer. An arrest warrant thus issued on the same day and, on August 12, 2017, defendant was taken into custody.
At the August 14, 2017 warrant hearing, defendant admitted both allegations in the August 9, 2017 notice of probation violation. The juvenile court thus sustained the allegations and, at an August 28, 2017 dispositional hearing, recommitted defendant to the YOTP program for a maximum period of confinement of 4 years 132 days. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Neither appointed counsel nor defendant has identified any issue for our review. Upon our own independent review of the record, we agree none exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The juvenile court accepted defendant's admissions that he violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to the probation department on July 28, 2017, and failing to keep an August 7, 2017 appointment with his probation officer. Defendant had previously admitted violating probation as alleged in two other section 777 petitions by, among other things, getting suspended from school for disruptive behavior, failing to meet with his probation officer, and removing his ankle monitoring device, leaving his whereabouts unknown. After defendant's admissions with respect to the first two section 777 notices, the juvenile court continued defendant on probation and placed him on home supervision with an ankle monitor. After the third time, however, the juvenile court followed the recommendation of defendant's probation officer and recommitted him to the YOTP program for a maximum period of confinement of 4 years 132 days. This decision was within the broad scope of the juvenile court's discretion. (See In re Angela M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1396 [a juvenile court's commitment decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with all reasonable inferences indulged to support its decision].)
Thus, having ensured defendant has received adequate and effective appellate review, we affirm the trial court's judgment. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 112-113; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Jenkins, J. We concur: /s/_________
Pollak, Acting P.J. /s/_________
Siggins, J.