Filed 7/28/17 In re Miguel C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


In re MIGUEL C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MIGUEL C.,
Defendant and Appellant.




A150128

(Sonoma County
Super. Ct. No. 37484-J)


When he was 20 years old, the juvenile court committed Miguel C. for 365 days based on a probation violation. His appointed counsel filed an opening brief that raises no issues but asks this court to conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We have reviewed the record and find no reasonably arguable appellate issue. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2012, police took Miguel C. and three Sureno gang affiliates into custody. Miguel C., who was 16 years old, was carrying a carjack handle, which he admitted was for protection against attack by Norteno gang members. The Sonoma County District Attorney filed a wardship petition, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, charging Miguel C. with illegal possession of a billy club. (Pen. Code, § 22210.)
About one month after this petition was filed, in October 2012, Miguel C. was involved in a fight on a city bus. Miguel C. initiated the altercation by hitting the victim on the back of the head a number of times, and the victim required four staples to close the wound. According to the victim’s sister, Miguel C. “flashed” a Sureno gang sign when exiting the bus, and the victim responded by “throwing” a Norteno gang sign.
Based on the brawl, the Sonoma County District Attorney filed a second wardship petition, charging Miguel C. with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)). The petition was amended to include a gang enhancement to the assault charge (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)). Miguel C. admitted the assault charge and the gang enhancement, and the court dismissed the gang participation count from the second petition and the Penal Code section 22210 count from the first petition. The court determined the maximum term of confinement for the admitted charge and enhancement to be eight years. The court declared Miguel C. a ward, committed him to juvenile hall for 60 to 90 days, and imposed probation conditions.
In March 2013, the Sonoma County Juvenile Probation Department (probation department) filed a notice of probation violation, alleging Miguel C. left his parents’ home without permission, missed an appointment with his probation officer, and failed to attend an after-school program. Miguel C. admitted the allegations, as amended, and the court ordered detention in juvenile hall for 35 to 40 days.
In July 2013, the probation department filed another notice of violation, alleging Miguel C. was arrested for robbery and participation in a criminal street gang. The incident involved an attack on an 18-year-old rival gang member, and stealing the victim’s cell phone. Miguel C. admitted the allegations. The court first committed Miguel C. to the Division of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”) for a 90-day period of observation and diagnosis. Upon his return from the diagnostic period, and recognizing Miguel C.’s maximum term of confinement to be eight years, the court committed him to DJJ for a term of six years “with credits against that for 225 days.”
In December 2015, Miguel C. was discharged from DJJ. At his reentry hearing, the court declared Miguel C. a ward, and ordered conditions of probation. In April 2016, the probation department filed a notice of probation violation, alleging Miguel C. left home without his parents’ permission and associated with known gang members. Miguel C. admitted the allegations. The court ordered Miguel C. to serve 30 days in custody, and, because he was 20 years old, the court noted he would have to serve the time in county jail.
In August 2016, the probation department filed a notice of probation violation, alleging Miguel C. was arrested for carrying a loaded firearm in public (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a)), carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)), and participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)). The notice also alleged Miguel C. possessed alcohol, marijuana, a loaded handgun, a metal crow bar, and a wooden bat. It further alleged police contacted Miguel C. at approximately 3:30 a.m., in violation of his curfew, he was with known Sureno gang members, and he possessed gang indicia.
Miguel C. admitted the arrest and curfew allegations, and the court dismissed the other allegations. At the October 2016 dispositional hearing, the district attorney requested Miguel C. be committed to DJJ, but Miguel C.’s counsel argued for a county jail commitment because “it’s important for him to remain local. His family is here. . . . [and] he’s going to become a father . . . .” The court stated it was unfortunate Miguel C. remained “entrenched in the gang lifestyle.” The court committed Miguel C. to county jail for 365 days. Miguel C. filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Miguel C.’s appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and informed Miguel C. he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Miguel C. declined to do so. We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende and find no arguable issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) Any error in committing Miguel C. directly to county jail was harmless because Miguel C. was 20 years old, and the probation department recommended a commitment in county jail. (In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 618-619 [juvenile court can “commit a ward 19 years of age or older to a juvenile detention facility with the understanding that, because the probation officer so recommends, the ward will be delivered to the sheriff for confinement in county jail pursuant to section 208.5”].) Miguel C. was ably represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.





_________________________
Jones, P. J.


We concur:


_________________________
Simons, J.


_________________________
Needham, J.