Filed 8/8/12 In re V.B. 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
V.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
V.B.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F064007
(Super.
Ct. No. 511413)
THE COURT
name="_ftnref1" title="">*
APPEAL from a judgment of the
Superior Court of
County. Nan Cohan Jacobs, Judge.
Robert P. Whitlock, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney
General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo
Appellant,
V.B., a minor, was placed on probation after being adjudged a ward of the court
in 2009 and continued on probation after being readjudged a ward in 2010. In November 2011, he admitted allegations he
violated his probation, and the court ordered that appellant be placed under
the care, custody, and control of the probation officer for suitable
out-of-home placement. The instant
appeal followed.
Appellant’s appointed appellate
counsel has filed an opening brief
which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no
issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit
additional briefing. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant
was initially adjudged a ward of the juvenile court in June 2009, following his
admissions of allegations contained in two separate wardship petitions (Welf. &
Inst. Code § 602) that he committed petty
theft (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor; attempted grand theft
(Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (c), 664), a felony; and misdemeanor battery (Pen.
Code, § 242). The court placed appellant
on probation.
Another
wardship petition was filed on August 12, 2010, in which it was alleged
appellant committed first degree burglary
(Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)), and on August 26, 2010, appellant admitted
the allegation. At the disposition
hearing on September 10, 2010, the court readjudged appellant a ward of the
court and continued him on probation.
In December
2010, appellant admitted an allegation that he committed a noncriminal
violation of probation. The court
continued appellant on probation.
On August
18, 2011,
probation by failing to attend school.
The court ordered appellant detained and set the disposition hearing for
September 1. On that date, disposition
was continued to September 8 to allow time for appellant to be examined by a
hall.
On
September 8, the court noted the psychiatrist had diagnosed appellant with
depression and recommended that appellant receive counseling and psychotropic
medication. The court continued the
hearing to September 12 to give appellant’s mother time to discuss with
appellant’s father the psychiatrist’s recommendation with respect to
medication.
On
September 12, appellant’s mother told the court she agreed to the medication
recommendation. The court released
appellant from juvenile hall to return home on a trial basis, and continued the
disposition hearing to October 25.
Appellant
failed to appear in court on October 25, and a bench warrant for his arrest was
issued. On November 3, the district
attorney filed a notice of violation of probation, alleging the following: appellant failed to appear in court on
October 25; he had been “dropped from enrollment” at his high school “due to
absenteeism”; he failed to attend Drug Court counseling groups on three
occasions; he stopped taking prescribed medication; and he failed to keep an
appointment with the juvenile hall psychiatrist.
On November
4, appellant appeared in court and admitted the probation violation
allegation. Proceeding with the
disposition hearing, the court ordered appellant placed in a suitable
out-of-home placement and ordered him detained in juvenile hall pending
placement.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the
record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues
exist.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">*Before
Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] Further
date references are to dates in 2011.
