legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Michael B.

In re Michael B.
12:16:2011

In re Michael B



In re Michael B.












Filed 12/12/11 In re Michael B. CA1/5





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE



In re Michael B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL B.,
Defendant and Appellant.


A131703

(Sonoma County
Super. Ct. No. 35822-J)


After Michael B. (appellant) admitted several probation violations, the juvenile court continued him as a ward of the court and placed him under the supervision of the probation officer pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 727, subdivision (a).[1] 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 supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2010, a section 602, subdivision (a) petition was filed in Sonoma County Juvenile Court, charging appellant, born in October 1995, with four counts of battery (Pen. Code, § 242), with gang enhancements (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (d)). The charges were based on an incident during class at a community school; appellant and another suspect attacked other students with their fists. The victims had ties to the Sureño gang; appellant admitted being a member of the Norteño gang.
Also on June 1, 2010, a section 777 notice of probation violation was filed alleging appellant violated probation by committing the crimes alleged in the petition, failing to keep the probation officer apprised of his whereabouts, testing positive for marijuana, and being suspended from school.[2]
Appellant admitted two of the battery counts and gang enhancements in the section 602 petition, one as a felony and one as a misdemeanor, and the other counts were dismissed. He also admitted his conduct constituted a violation of probation. The juvenile court continued his wardship, placed him with his parents, and imposed additional probation conditions.
On February 8, 2011, a petition was filed under section 777, alleging that appellant had violated probation by failing to appear for work crews as ordered by the probation officer, he had been suspended from school for three days for defiance, and he had left his mother’s residence without permission for two days. Appellant admitted the probation violations.
At the dispositional hearing on March 8, 2011, the juvenile court continued appellant’s wardship, removed him from home, and placed his care, custody, and control under the supervision of the probation officer under section 727, subdivision (a).
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. Although the present appeal is from the March 2011 dispositional order, we note that the record shows appellant voluntarily and knowingly admitted two of the counts in the June 1, 2010 petition and the subsequent probation violations. In light of appellant’s history of probation violations, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in placing appellant’s care, custody, and control under the supervision of the probation officer under section 727, subdivision (a).
Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary 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 supplementary brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.




SIMONS, Acting P.J.



We concur.




NEEDHAM, J.




BRUINIERS, J.



[1] All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Section 727, subdivision (a), authorizes the juvenile court to “order the care, custody, and control of the minor to be under the supervision of the probation officer who may place the minor in any of the following: [¶] (1) The approved home of a relative, or the approved home of a nonrelative, extended family member . . . . [¶] (2) A suitable licensed community care facility. [¶] (3) With a foster family agency to be placed in a suitable licensed foster family home or certified family home . . . .”

[2] In March 2009, appellant was placed on probation after he admitted violating Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (resisting a police officer). In May 2009, after he committed a probation violation, appellant was declared a ward of the court.




Description After Michael B. (appellant) admitted several probation violations, the juvenile court continued him as a ward of the court and placed him under the supervision of the probation officer pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 727, subdivision (a).[1] 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 supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale