Opinion
A153522
08-17-2018
In re M.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.G., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J1600999)
Appellant M.G., born November 2003, was declared a ward of the court and placed in his mother's home after admitting being an accessory after the fact to a robbery. Subsequently, he violated probation and he was continued in home supervision. 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 supplemental brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In August 2016, a Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602, subdivision (a) juvenile wardship petition was filed in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging appellant committed several counts of robbery and attempted robbery. In September, count one of the petition was amended to allege appellant was an accessory after the fact (Pen. Code § 32), appellant admitted the offense, and the remaining counts were dismissed.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
The Alameda County juvenile court adjudged appellant a ward of the court and ordered him to reside at home with his mother under the supervision of the probation department. The court imposed various probation conditions and directed appellant to perform 40 hours of community service. The matter was then transferred to Contra Costa County because that was where appellant's mother resided.
In December 2017, appellant was alleged to have violated probation by getting in a fight after school, resulting in his suspension, and by having numerous absences from school. Appellant admitted violating the terms of probation, and the Contra Costa County juvenile court continued him as a ward of the court with an additional 60 days of home supervision. Over appellant's objection, the court prohibited appellant from using drugs or alcohol, and also required him to submit to drug testing.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record and have found no arguable appellate issues.
Appellant was represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings and there is no indication in the record that counsel was ineffective. In light of appellant's age and his record of behavior, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in continuing appellant's home supervision or in imposing the various probation conditions recommended by the probation department.
Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court's attention any issue he believed deserved 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, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
BRUINIERS, J.