Filed 2/25/22 In re C.O. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(El Dorado)
----
| In re C.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | C094739
|
|
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
C.O.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
(Super. Ct. No. PDL20210010)
|
This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende and In re Kevin S., we affirm the judgment.
Facts and History of the Proceedings
On February 19, 2021, the People filed a juvenile wardship petition against C.O. alleging she had engaged in criminal threats against her mother (C.E.) (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)). C.O. admitted the truth of this allegation on March 8, 2021, and the matter was set for a disposition hearing wherein the grade of the offense would also be determined.
In March 2021, the day before C.O.’s 18th birthday, the court declared her a ward of the court (Wel. & Inst. Code, § 725, subd. (b)), removed her from the care of her parents, and placed her on probation under certain terms and conditions. These conditions included that C.O. “[f]ollow the directives of the Probation Officer” and “[n]ot contact or associate with: Persons known to be on probation or parole.” The court also directed she pay a $100 restitution fine (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6) and complete 30 hours of community service.
Thereafter, on March 22, 2021, the People filed a second juvenile wardship petition alleging C.O. had engaged in criminal threats against D.C. C.O. admitted the truth of this allegation on April 12, 2021, and the juvenile court determined the offense was a felony, again found the minor a ward of the court, and continued the minor on probation, ordering she serve 189 days in juvenile hall with credit for 69 days served. Her maximum confinement time was three years, eight months. On May 10, 2021, the probation department reported that C.O. was interviewing with possible placements, and the court temporarily released her into her father’s custody.
Thereafter, C.O. was detained on July 15, 2021, as a result of her failure to abide by the conditions of her probation. Specifically, the detention report identified C.O.’s failure to obey a directive from her probation officer and her association with a known probationer that were contrary to her conditions of probation. On July 16, 2021, the probation department filed a petition for violation of probation alleging three violations of probation as a result of this conduct. C.O. admitted the truth of these allegations on July 20, 2021, and the court ordered she serve five days in juvenile hall with credit for five days plus 60 days on electronic monitoring home confinement.
C.O. timely appealed.
Discussion
We appointed counsel to represent C.O. on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) C.O. was advised by counsel of the 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 C.O. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to C.O.
Discussion
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL, J.
We concur:
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
HOCH, J.
