Opinion
A152281
03-27-2018
In re A.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.W., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J1500632)
17-year-old A.W. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile court's order continuing him as a ward of the court and placing him in a rehabilitation facility for violating his probation. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 3, 2015, a juvenile wardship petition was filed charging appellant with: (1) unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 1); (2) evading a peace officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 2); and (3) misdemeanor hit-and-run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a), count 3). According to a probable cause declaration filed by police, officers responded to a supermarket after receiving a report of a hit and run. When they arrived at the scene, appellant drove away in a car that matched the description given by witnesses. Appellant drove for over five miles, through two red lights and a stop sign, over a concrete median into oncoming traffic lanes, and in excess of 100 miles per hour until he hit a guardrail on a highway offramp and was taken into custody. Appellant admitted to police that he knew the vehicle he was driving was stolen and said he did not stop when he saw the police car behind him because he did not want to go to jail.
Appellant admitted counts 1 and 3, and count 2 was dismissed. Appellant waived a number of enumerated rights and was informed that the maximum time of confinement was three years, four months. Thereafter, the juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court and committed him to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for six months, with an additional 90-day conditional release period.
On September 17, 2015, appellant admitted violating his probation by assaulting another ward. The juvenile court returned appellant to his placement with an additional 30 days added to his program. On November 6, 2015, appellant again admitted violating his probation by assaulting another ward. On November 23, 2015, the court ordered probation to place appellant in a court-approved home or institution. On February 2, 2016, appellant admitted violating his probation by violating the rules at his placement, and he waived disposition. On April 20, 2016, appellant admitted violating probation by leaving his placement without permission. At the dispositional hearing, the court ordered probation to place appellant in a court-approved home or institution.
On May 30, 2017, a notice pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 777, was filed, alleging appellant committed a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) on May 25, 2017. After a contested probation violation hearing, the juvenile court found that appellant violated a probation condition that required him to obey all laws by committing the lesser included offense of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c).) At a dispositional hearing held on July 7, 2017, the court continued appellant as a ward and committed him to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for nine months. In addition to the standard conditions of probation, the court imposed various other conditions including not entering any school campus unless enrolled or approved by probation, attending counseling as directed by probation, and writing a letter of apology to the victim.
On May 25, 2017, at around 5:30, Henry V. was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car when appellant and seven or either others approached him, asked him where he was from, and started hitting him in the face. When Henry tried to get out of the driver's side door, appellant went around to the driver's side and prevented him from exiting. Henry's left ear was cut and his arm was sore. Someone tried to take his cell phone from his hand, and someone took his sweatshirt. Henry identified appellant and a co-responsible as having been involved in the attack.
Appellant denied involvement in the incident, stating he and his brother were walking from a park back to their school when police officers stopped them and told them to get on the ground and put their hands up. Someone came in a police car and identified them, and appellant and his brother were handcuffed and placed in the car. Appellant denied being in the area where the incident occurred at any point that day.
DISCUSSION
Appellant's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and asks this court to independently review the entire record to determine if it contains any issues which would, if resolved favorably to the appellant, result in reversal or modification. We have examined the entire record and have found no reasonably arguable appellate issue, and we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
McGuiness, Acting P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Pollak, J. /s/_________
Jenkins, J.
Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------