Opinion
A168433
02-28-2024
In re P.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. P.H., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J23-00350)
CASTRO, J. [*]
In this delinquency matter, P.H. appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional order adjudging him a juvenile court ward, placing him on formal probation in the home of his mother, and imposing numerous probation conditions. P.H.'s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. Having done so, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2023, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that, on or about May 16, 2023, P.H., a minor, committed felony unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count one); felony receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d; count two); and misdemeanor giving false identifying information to a peace officer (id., § 148.9, subd. (a); count three).
The allegations were based on the following incident. At approximately 3:44 a.m. on May 16, 2023, California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers responded to a single-car accident at Highway 4 and Railroad Avenue in Pittsburgh, finding a black Kia Optima had crashed and overturned. When officers discovered P.H. disheveled and hiding nearby, the minor claimed that another individual had been driving the car and had run away. P.H. gave the officer a false name and date of birth. The CHP officers noted that only the driver's side airbag was deployed, and the ignition was punched out. They could not find the name P.H. had given them in a records check. When they spoke to P.H. again, he admitted to being the driver and stated he had started the car with a phone charger. The owner of the Kia was unaware her car had been stolen. She provided video surveillance from outside her home which captured the theft by an individual fitting P.H.'s description.
The underlying facts with respect to the allegations are contained in the dispositional report, which summarizes the police report that formed the factual basis for P.H.'s plea.
After taking P.H. to the hospital to be checked for injuries, the CHP officers spoke to P.H.'s mother. She told them that P.H. had a habit of running away, and she had not seen him for three weeks. After his mother declined to take custody of him, the officers booked P.H. into juvenile hall.
Probation had previously been informed by their counterparts in Clark County, Nevada that P.H. was placed on probation for 43 months on March 27, 2023, based on a misdemeanor charge of willfully obstructing an officer. In April and May 2023, probation had tried to complete an evaluation of mother's home for possible placement and courtesy supervision under the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, but mother reported that he had left home without permission, and she did not know his whereabouts. She had filed a missing person report with the Antioch Police Department.
When interviewed by probation, P.H. admitted he had taken the car without permission. He also stated that he runs away often, having previously flown to Las Vegas without permission. Most recently, he had left home two or three weeks ago. He stated that his relationship with his mother had been difficult for a few years because she was critical of everything he did, did not like his friends, and often did not want him to leave the house. P.H. admitted getting physical with his mother at times. He also admitted daily marijuana use. He stated he would like to go to a group home or independent living situation but was willing to try returning home.
P.H. was detained in juvenile hall at the detention hearing on May 18, 2023, with authority for probation to release him to his mother on home supervision if appropriate. At a pretrial hearing on May 30, 2023, the parties announced that they had reached a negotiated disposition with respect to the allegations. P.H. and his attorney completed and signed a waiver of rights form, and P.H. was questioned regarding his understanding of his trial rights and the possible consequences of a no contest plea. He then pleaded no contest to misdemeanor unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle under a reduced count one. The court found P.H.'s plea to be knowing and voluntary, noting he had waived his appeal rights as to jurisdictional matters. The remainder of the allegations were dismissed. The juvenile court found the allegations in the amended petition true, found P.H. to be a person described by section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and continued his detention in juvenile hall.
The day before the dispositional hearing, minor's counsel reported that P.H. had disclosed a history of abuse in the family home. A report was made to child protective services and was pending. Given these facts, minor's counsel requested out-of-home placement. Probation recommended supervision in mother's home.
At the dispositional hearing on June 13, 2023, mother denied the allegations of abuse, stating that she loved P.H. and would always be his mother, but requested a removal order. Probation continued to recommend supervision in mother's home. Although it had concerns, the court found mother credible and concluded it did not have sufficient evidence of substantial risk of detriment to P.H. if he was returned home. It thus declared P.H. a juvenile court ward with no termination date and placed him on formal probation in mother's home. Numerous conditions of probation were imposed without objection, including 60-day home supervision, a curfew, substance abuse testing, community service, individual and family counseling, regular attendance at school, and no physical discipline in the home. P.H. timely appealed from the dispositional order.
DISCUSSION
As discussed above, P.H. appeals from the trial court's June 2023 dispositional order declaring him a juvenile court ward after he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. We appointed counsel to represent P.H. on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues and requesting that we independently review the record. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110.) P.H. was advised by his attorney of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court, but he has not done so. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that P.H.'s attorney has complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. In particular, we see no arguable issue with respect to the juvenile court's decision to place P.H. on formal probation in his mother's home. (See Welf. &Inst. Code, § 202, subd. (a) [purpose of the juvenile court law is "to provide for the protection and safety of the public and each minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to preserve and strengthen the minor's family ties whenever possible, removing the minor from the custody of his or her parents only when necessary"]; In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154 [placement decision in juvenile wardship proceeding reviewed for abuse of discretion; underlying facts reviewed for substantial evidence].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUMES, P. J. LANGHORNE WILSON, J.
[*] Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.