In re Malik S.
Filed 8/1/13 In re Malik S. 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NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 MALIK S., a
Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
MALIK S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A137362
(
Super.
After
a series of probation violations during home detention, the juvenile court
continued Malik S. (appellant) as a ward of the court, removed him from his
mother’s home, and detained him in juvenile hall pending delivery to an
appropriate placement. 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;
436.) Appellant has not filed a
supplementary brief. We find no arguable
issues and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In
April 2011, the
County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,
subdivision (a) juvenile wardship petition alleging a misdemeanor violation of
Penal Code section 626.10, subdivision (a) (possessing a weapon on school
grounds).
court sustained the allegation. In October
2011, the court imposed a one-year wardship.
Between
December 2011 and April 2012, appellant committed several probation violations
while residing in his mother’s home. In
May 2012, appellant was committed to a ranch program; in June 2012, appellant violated
probation by fighting with another resident.
At the end of June, he was removed from the ranch program for “mental
health reasons,†and the juvenile court subsequently directed that appellant be
evaluated by doctors at the Contra Costa
Regional Medical
Center.
In
August 2012, the juvenile court returned appellant to home supervision in his
mother’s house. On October 4, appellant
“was successfully terminated from the home supervision program,†but on October
22 a notice of probation violation was filed.
Appellant was alleged to have violated probation by testing positive for
THC on October 15 and by failing to return home when directed on October
18. Appellant admitted the violations.
The
night before the November 21, 2012
dispositional hearing, appellant, who was temporarily detained in juvenile
hall, “was placed on special program for banging on his door and yelling
threats and disrupting the unit.†At the
dispositional hearing, the juvenile court reviewed on the record the history of
appellant’s case, noting he had “been given multiple opportunities to be
maintained in the home.†The court
continued, “[t]his is not in any way a reflection upon the mother’s abilities
to try and advocate for her son and do well for him or by him, but I have to determine
at this point does he go back into the same situation where it has not worked
or does he actually get the opportunity to get the intensive services that I
believe he needs in placement? And I do
believe it has reached that juncture.â€
The court continued appellant as an indefinite ward of the court and
directed he be removed from home pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 726, subdivision (a)(3). The
court ordered that appellant be detained in juvenile hall pending his placement
in “a court-approved home or institution.â€
The court directed probation to make every effort to find a placement
close enough for appellant’s mother to actively participate in his treatment.
This
appeal followed.
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. In light of appellant’s history of probation
violations, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that
appellant be removed from his home so he could receive more intensive services
at an out-of-home placement.
Appellate
counsel advised appellant of his right to file a
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,
J.
We concur.
JONES, P.J.
NEEDHAM, J.
conspiracy to commit a crime (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)) was
dismissed in May 2011.
