Opinion
A134986
09-07-2012
In re Q.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Q.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J1100691)
The 16-year-old minor appeals from a dispositional order entered after he admitted his third violation of the terms of his probation. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find no arguable issues and affirm.
The minor pleaded no contest pursuant to a plea agreement to an allegation that he received stolen property, in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a). He was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation for one year, but later admitted that he violated the terms of his probation after he was suspended from school. At a dispositional hearing on June 29, 2011, the juvenile court committed the minor to a six-month program at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility, and imposed various terms and conditions over the minor's objection. The minor appealed from the dispositional order, and this court affirmed after his attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (In re Q.G. (Jan. 6, 2012, A132524) [nonpub. opn.].)
The day after the minor filed his previous appeal, the juvenile court ordered a mental health assessment and a medication assessment for the minor. The juvenile court later granted the minor's petition for a modification of court order (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 778), and set aside the order committing the minor to Orin Allen, apparently in response to information learned through the mental health assessment. The minor was continued as a ward of the court, and was placed at Valley Teen Ranch on September 9, 2011.
The minor was terminated from his placement at Valley Teen Ranch on September 30, 2011. On October 5, he admitted that he violated the terms of his probation, and was placed at a facility in Redwood City.
On February 28, 2012, the minor again admitted a probation violation, after he absconded from his Redwood City placement. The probation department reported that the minor's behavior in juvenile hall after his most recent detention was "very poor," and that he had been classified as being a high risk for reoffending. The department recommended that the minor be placed in a highly structured environment.
At a dispositional hearing on March 14, 2012, the minor's counsel asked that the minor be placed for six months at juvenile hall, where he could receive mental health services. The juvenile court denied the request, stating that the minor would not receive the services he needed at juvenile hall. The court continued the minor's wardship, with no termination date, and ordered him detained in juvenile hall pending delivery to placement. This timely appeal followed.
The minor has been represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. No error appears in the minor's most recent admissions of probation violations, as he was advised of the rights he waived and the consequences of admitting the violations. The minor received a fair dispositional hearing, and the juvenile court's placement order was not an abuse of discretion.
There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal. The dispositional order is affirmed.
______________
Sepulveda, J.
We concur: ______________
Ruvolo, P.J.
______________
Reardon, J.