In re T.P.
Filed 1/29/13 In re T.P. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re T.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
T.P.,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E056264
(Super.Ct.No.
J242920)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of
Bernardino County. Thomas S. Garza, Judge. Affirmed.
Eric
Cioffi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant
T.P. appeals from a disposition finding, dated May 7, 2012, that he violated his probation by failing to
return home by 10:00 p.m.
and Procedure
On
March 2, 2012, the juvenile
court declared T.P. a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602,
subdivision (a), after T.P. admitted to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger
(Pen. Code, § 21310). The court placed
T.P. on probation at home. One of the
probation conditions was that he return home each night by 10:00 pm.
On
March 9, 2012, another
juvenile wardship petition was filed, alleging defendant violated his probation
by failing to return home by 10:00 p.m.
on March 3, 2012.
At the contested
jurisdictional hearing held on April
23, 2012, T.P.’s mother testified that on March 3, 2012, defendant left home to go to a
basketball game and never returned. T.P.
did not have permission to stay out late and did not contact his mother until
he was taken into custody three days later.
The juvenile court found that T.P. had violated the terms of his
probation and ordered him to remain in custody until the disposition hearing
set for May 7, 2012.
At the May 7, 2012, disposition hearing, the
juvenile court continued T.P. as a ward of the court. The court ordered T.P. to serve 63 days in
custody, with credit for 63 days already served. The court released T.P. to the custody of his
family and set a review hearing for 60 days out. This appeal followed.
At T.P.’s request,
we appointed counsel to represent
him. Counsel has filed a brief under
authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13
Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth an integrated statement of the case and
facts, and asking this court to undertake an independent review of the entire
record. We provided T.P. with an
opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. We have conducted an
Disposition
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
