Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW 07-6402
SIMONS, J.
On June 12, 2007, an original juvenile petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) was filed against appellant Maurice M. alleging that he committed a felony: operating a motor vehicle with intent to evade a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); and two misdemeanors: reckless driving causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23104, subd. (a)) and driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)).
The original juvenile petition alleged a felony Penal Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), violation; no such code section exists in the Penal Code. However, at the contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found true as alleged, a felony Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a) violation.
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on July 3, 2007. After the close of the prosecution case, the court denied appellant’s motion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1 to dismiss the petition. Following the conclusion of all the evidence and argument by counsel, the court sustained the allegations of the petition.
At the dispositional hearing on July 31, 2007, the court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him on in-home probation. He was permitted to reside with a relative of his mother in Vancouver, Washington. Probation conditions included, among other items, a 6:00 p.m. curfew and completion of anger management classes. Appellant received a maximum confinement time of three years four months. Appellant’s counsel has advised us that her examination of the record has revealed no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has advised her client in writing that a Wende brief was filed and that he had the right to personally file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. No such supplemental brief was filed. We agree that the record reveals no arguable issues and affirm.
Background
The parties stipulated that on June 9, 2007, at the intersection of West MacArthur and Market Streets in Alameda County, the victim suffered bodily injury proximately caused by the driver of a 1999 Mercedes Benz sport utility vehicle (the SUV), which vehicle was identified and referred to below by a specific license plate number. The parties also stipulated that the police had probable cause to stop the SUV.
On June 9, 2007, San Francisco Police Officers Marquez and Dilag observed the SUV in San Francisco and began to follow it as it approached the east bound on-ramp to the Bay Bridge. The officers activated the patrol car’s lights and siren, but the SUV accelerated onto the freeway. A high speed chase ensued, and the driver drove 80 miles an hour and made several unsafe lane changes without signaling. The SUV exited the freeway, ran a red light at the intersection of Market and MacArthur and attempted a right turn, while traveling at 75 to 80 miles per hour. The driver lost control of the SUV and it hit a building and came to a stop. The officers observed the driver’s door open and a man, later identified as the victim, lying on the ground approximately six to eight feet from the SUV. Though neither officer observed anyone exit the SUV, they both saw a person running from the driver’s side of the vehicle. Officer Dilag identified appellant as that individual. Appellant testified he was not the driver of the SUV.
Discussion
Our review of the record reveals that proper procedures were followed by the prosecutor in filing the petition against appellant and setting the matter for a jurisdictional hearing. Defendant was adequately represented by counsel at all stages of the proceeding. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss under Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1 and to sustain the allegations of the petition. At the dispositional hearing, the court declared appellant a ward of the court and ordered him to reside in his mother’s home, with the understanding that she would allow him to reside with a specified family in Vancouver, Washington. This order tracked a recommendation of the probation department and a request by appellant’s family, and was proper in the circumstances. The court properly ordered appellant into anger management, despite his objection. In all other respects the court ordered probation terms are appropriate. The court correctly specified the maximum term of confinement.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur. JONES, P.J., NEEDHAM, J.