Opinion
F065044
12-20-2012
In re JON S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JON S., Defendant and Appellant.
Dawn Schock, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 511581)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Franson, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Nan Cohan Jacobs, Judge.
Dawn Schock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On March 21, 2011, appellant, Jon S., waived his rights and admitted a violation of his probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777. Appellant was referred to the Rite of Passage Program (program) in Nevada. Appellant arrived to that program in early June 2011. On April 5, 2012, a notice was filed that appellant violated the terms of his probation because he was terminated from the program for drug use, disrespect of staff, tagging of site property with his gang emblem, attempts to leave the program without leave, and negative behavior reports in school.
Appellant had multiple sustained allegations filed in prior petitions pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Appellant committed felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) and felony theft or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) in 2010. He committed felony second degree burglary in 2009 (Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (b)). Appellant had misdemeanor adjudications in 2009 for arson (Pen. Code, § 452, subd. (d)) and theft of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). Between 2009 and 2011, appellant violated his probation five times. Appellant had two earlier adjudications in 2005 and 2008.
--------
At the conclusion of a contested hearing on April 27, 2012, the juvenile court found that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The court ordered appellant to be detained in juvenile hall for 24 days pending a placement review hearing. On May 14, 2012, appellant was placed in a group home and the matter was set for a review hearing in six months. We review the appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
FACTS
At the violation of probation hearing, Sherry Clark Miller, a case management coordinator from the program, testified concerning appellant's conduct in the program. Miller explained that appellant was terminated from the program after personally witnessing appellant's acts of vandalism and tagging program property with gang graffiti. Appellant was disrespectful to staff, refusing to follow staff directions, and using inappropriate language. Appellant wrote graffiti on the furniture in his room and bathroom.
Appellant absconded from the program site and from a medical appointment. Appellant engaged in fighting while in the program. Appellant was disruptive in the classroom and left without his teacher's permission. When sent to the disciplinary Refocus Unit, appellant was noncompliant, refusing to do his assigned work.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on September 6, 2012, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.