Filed 1/5/18 P. v. G.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
G.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A151621

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J1400107)


G.H. appeals from an order finding him in violation of his probation and committing him to a youth rehabilitation facility. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In April 2014, G.H. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and placed on felony probation with certain terms and conditions, including that he obey all laws, abide by a specified curfew, not associate with anyone known to be a gang member, not participate in gang activity, report any police contact to his probation officer immediately, not operate a motor vehicle without a license, and not use or possess any weapon.
A. Prior Probation Violations
On August 11, 2016, the juvenile probation department filed a notice that G.H. violated his probation on August 7, 2016, by violating his curfew, being with a documented gang member, and failing to notify his probation officer of contact with the police.
A supplemental juvenile wardship petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 on August 16, 2016, alleged that G.H. committed felony hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)) on June 22, 2016. Based on these alleged offenses, the juvenile probation department filed a notice that G.H. violated his probation by committing a hit and run, driving without a license, and violating his curfew.
In court on September 13, 2016, G.H. entered an admission of the felony hit and run allegation and the two probation violations. The misdemeanor driving without a license allegation was dismissed.
On September 26, 2016, the juvenile court continued his wardship and committed him to the Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) for 12 months, with the April 2014 orders remaining in effect.
B. Subject Probation Violation
On April 27, 2017, the juvenile probation department filed a notice of a probation violation, alleging that on April 21, 2017, G.H. possessed a firearm and displayed gang signs while on a temporary release.
On May 12, 2017, the juvenile court held a contested hearing on the probation violation. Detective Matt Anderson of the Richmond Police Department Special Investigation Gang Unit was accepted by the court as an expert in the investigation of criminal street gangs in Richmond. He testified that on April 21, 2017, he observed video clips for the making of a rap video on a social media website called Instagram live, on which videos are posted in “real time.” The video depicted individuals he recognized as “Swerve Team gang members” and G.H., who was holding a Glock pistol. Anderson determined that the pistol was not a replica, despite a disclaimer at the beginning of the video claiming the weapons in the video were “props and props only.” He explained that this disclaimer appears on “just about every video now taken within the gang culture and rap culture in Richmond” in an attempt to evade law enforcement investigation, even though it can be observed that the firearms are real. Furthermore, G.H. and the gang members in the video would not use props or fake weapons because “they would be seen as a weak gang, and they wouldn’t have the respect of the rival gangs if they were choosing toy guns for videos.” Anderson acknowledged that it is possible for videos that are several years old to be recorded with a phone and then posted to Instagram live, but in this case he was informed by Deputy Sears of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department that “the deputies in North Richmond were aware of [the] video shoot that day [of April 21, 2017].” A supervisor at OAYRF testified that G.H. was on a temporary pass from OAYRF to attend a funeral when he was observed on Instagram posing with a gun. The juvenile court found that G.H. had violated his probation.
At a dispositional hearing on June 2, 2017, the juvenile court continued G.H.’s wardship and committed him to OAYRF for 12 months, followed by a 90-day conditional release aftercare program. The court stated the maximum time of confinement and imposed other orders as recommended by the probation department.
G.H. filed a notice of appeal from the order finding the probation violation and the dispositional order.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant’s appellate counsel represented in a declaration accompanying the opening brief in this appeal that he advised appellant that a Wende brief would be filed and that within 30 days appellant could personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wanted to bring to this court’s attention.
We have not received any supplemental brief from appellant.
We find no arguable issues on appeal. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
III. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.



NEEDHAM, J.



We concur.




SIMONS, ACTING P.J.




BRUINIERS, J.