In re Jose V.

Filed 8/22/07 In re Jose V. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE COURT:*

Jose V., a minor, appeals from a disposition order providing that he remain a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1]be placed in the care, custody and control of the probation officer and remain in the home of his parents subject to conditions, including the condition that he spend 80 days in juvenile hall. This order followed the sustaining of a section 777 petition revoking probation previously granted after appellant admitted an allegation of possessing graffiti tools (Pen. Code, 594.1, subd. (e)(1)). The evidence adduced at the section 777 hearing was as follows:

Denise Williams, a probation officer with the community detention program, to which appellant had been previously assigned for probation violations, met with appellant and reminded him of his prior probation violations and informed him of the terms of the community detention program, specifically cautioning him not to miss classes. Williams subsequently learned that appellant had been missing classes, which he continued to do even after she gave him yet an additional chance. She also learned that he had not been at home on probation at times he was supposed to be there. She again met with appellant regarding these violations and detained him.

The juvenile court found appellant to be in violation of probation.

At appellants subsequent disposition hearing, Probation Officer Newgene Rawls testified. He recommended midterm camp because of appellants repeated violations and refusal to attend school, his receipt of five failing grades, his drug use, refusal to participate in counseling and community service and his membership in the 18th Street gang with a moniker Camuil. Also, appellant had cut off his GPS electric ankle bracelet. Officer Rawls took two drug tests of appellant that were positive for marijuana. Additionally, appellants mother wrote a statement indicating that appellant refused to attend school, and, while she was at work, had gang members to his house who posted graffiti on the property leading to her eviction from her home.

The juvenile court found appellant ineligible for the Dorothy Kirby Center and ordered him to juvenile hall for 80 days, giving credit for 90 days, and then home on probation pursuant to the conditions previously imposed.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised.

On March 21, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The order under review is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

* BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J., CHAVEZ, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.