Filed 2/21/18 In re K.F. CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re K.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F076242

(Super. Ct. No. 12CEJ600083-5V3, 5A3)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Denise Lee Whitehead, Judge.
Jennifer Mouzis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office fo the State Attorney General, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Respondent..

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for minor K.F. asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Minor was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from minor. Our review reveals no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On January 7, 2016, minor was adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placed on probation for a section 707, subdivision (b) offense.
On June 19, 2017, the People filed a section 777 petition alleging minor violated probation by (1) throwing rocks through his mother’s windows and injuring her grandson; (2) vandalizing his grandfather’s car, punching and kicking his grandfather, and threatening to come back and kill everyone; and (3) failing to report to probation.
On June 27, 2017, minor denied the allegations and remained in custody pending adjudication.
On July 6, 2017, minor admitted violating probation by vandalizing his grandfather’s car, getting into a physical altercation with his grandfather, and running away to avoid being caught by the police. The juvenile court accepted the admission, found minor in violation of probation, and revoked probation. Minor remained detained.
On July 19, 2017, the probation officer reported that minor had been performing well in detention. She explained they had screened him for the New Horizons program so he could receive services, but he refused to participate because he had been targeted by certain individuals in the program who were out to get him due to his cooperation regarding the original underlying offense. Minor confirmed this situation to the court. Minor’s counsel encouraged the court to consider 180 days of regular commitment, rather than 365 days. The probation officer noted that, despite minor’s recent good performance, this was his third probation violation of a very serious charge, and he continued to operate outside the law. The prosecutor agreed New Horizons offered services minor could benefit from; the prosecutor believed 365 days was appropriate.
The court considered the reports and minor’s letter, then reinstated probation and granted credit against the maximum period of confinement of five years two months. The court noted that formal probation in the custody of a parent or guardian had failed. The court agreed the New Horizons program would be better for minor, but in light of his situation, the court committed him to 365 days at the Juvenile Justice Campus.
On August 29, 2017, minor filed a notice of appeal.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.
DISPOSITION
The findings and orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.