Opinion
A132524
01-06-2012
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 minor appeals from a dispositional order committing him to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility after he admitted that he violated the terms of his probation. The minor's 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.
A juvenile wardship petition alleged that the then 14-year-old minor came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, in that he committed first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)) and petty theft (§§ 484, 488). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the minor pleaded no contest to an added allegation that he received stolen property, in violation of section 496, subdivision (a), and the original allegations were dismissed. At a dispositional hearing on January 20, 2011, the minor was adjudged a ward of the court, and placed on probation for one year, subject to various terms and conditions.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On June 15, 2011, the minor admitted that he violated the terms of his probation when he was suspended from school for being involved in a battery and a fight. At a dispositional hearing on June 29, the juvenile court committed the minor to a six-month program at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility, followed by a 90-day conditional parole period, and imposed various terms and conditions. Over the minor's objection, the juvenile court imposed gang conditions, ordering the minor not to participate in any gang activity, not to possess any paraphernalia known to be gang related, not to obtain any new tattoos known to be gang related, and not to transmit through the minor's cell phone any information he knew to be gang related.
No error appears in the minor's admission of a probation violation, or in the juvenile court's determination that placement at a rehabilitation facility was appropriate. The minor was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and the record reveals that the minor was advised of the rights he waived and the consequences of admitting a violation of the terms of his probation. Evidence in the record supports the juvenile court's finding that the gang conditions imposed were appropriate, and the conditions were not unconstitutionally vague. (People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 949-952.)
In response to a letter written by the minor's appellate counsel, a supplemental clerk's transcript and a supplemental reporter's transcript, both containing material postdating the order appealed from, were filed with this court. The supplemental record indicates that there has been a subsequent change in placement of the minor. We review the correctness of the dispositional order as of the time of its rendition, upon a record of matters that were before the juvenile court for its consideration. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.)
--------
There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal. The dispositional order is affirmed.
____________________________
Sepulveda, J.
We concur:
____________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
____________________________
Reardon, J.