Filed 4/27/17 In re T.C. CA4/3




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.


G053322

(Super. Ct. No. DL049603-001)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed.
Frank J. Torrano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Theodore M. Cropley and Alana Cohen Butler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
This matter originated in April 2014 with a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (section 602) petition (petition 1) against defendant, T.C., in Solano County Superior Court. He later admitted one felony count of vandalism to a car (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor count of vandalism to a house (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)). He was declared a ward of the juvenile court, placed in the custody of his father and granted probation.
Another section 602 petition (petition 2) was filed against T.C. in Solano County in June 2014. He later admitted one felony count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) and one misdemeanor count of battery (Pen. Code, § 242). The next day the entire case was transferred to the juvenile court in Orange County for disposition.
The Orange County juvenile court terminated T.C.’s home supervision with his father and committed him to juvenile hall for 80 days (minus 20 days’ credit for time served), but allowed T.C. to serve the 60 remaining days in the Accountability Commitment Program.
In April 2015, the Orange County District Attorney filed a third petition pursuant to section 602 (petition 3), which alleged T.C. committed an identity theft against an elder adult (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (d)(1); count 1); unlawfully acquired access card information (Pen. Code, § 484e, subd. (d); count 2), and committed grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); count 3).
T.C. later admitted counts 1 and 2 in exchange for the dismissal of count 3 and a grant of probation on certain terms and conditions. According to the plea agreement, between October 30, 2014, and December 24, 2014, T.C. took over $950 from Melvin N., an adult over the age of 65, by using his personal identifying information and acquired Melvin’s access card account information.
The court set a wardship status review hearing for March 16, 2016. T.C. was 18 years 7 months old on that date.
The probation report for the March 16, 2016 hearing recommended “wardship be terminated successfully.” It noted T.C. had completed all court-ordered sanctions except for payment of victim restitution and state restitution fines, of which he had paid $475; and that he currently worked full time.
At the March 16, 2016 hearing the court stated it had read and considered the probation report, and T.C.’s counsel submitted the matter on the report. The court questioned whether T.C. had been successfully rehabilitated.
The court noted T.C. had admitted to taking money from an elderly person and committing forgery, fraud, and identity theft as alleged in petition 3, and that plea had occurred less than a year earlier.
The court explained it was a “fairly serious sophisticated offense that resulted in a substantial loss to the victim; and the court does not feel confident that enough time has transpired to rehabilitate the minor in light of the seriousness of his offense, so that is my thought on it. [¶] My inclination would be to continue wardship for another six months to make sure that he does not reoffend. I’m really troubled by the sophistication aspect of his offense and the identity theft and fraud.” The court further noted a “serious violent incident” occurred less than two years previously, referring to petition 2, where charges of robbery and resisting an officer were dismissed.
The court ultimately stated, “given the background of this young man, I simply do not feel comfortable that we have done what our goal is, which is to rehabilitate him. [¶] There’s just a level of sophistication and violence on the part of this minor that it militates against terminating wardship at this time. So, the court is going to deny the request to terminate wardship. Wardship is going to continue, plus he’s not even here. Maybe he wasn’t ordered to be here, but I would like him here the next time . . . . [¶] Plus, I would like the District Attorney . . . to contact the victim . . . .”
This timely appeal was taken from the juvenile court’s March 16, 2016 order continuing T.C. on wardship status.
We appointed counsel to represent T.C. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that summarized the proceedings and facts of the case and advised he found no arguable issues to assert on his behalf. (Anders v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) To assist us in our independent review of the record, counsel suggested we consider whether the court abused its discretion by declining to terminate T.C.’s section 602 wardship as recommended by probation.
Counsel and this court both notified T.C. that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, we received no supplemental brief from him and the time to file one has passed.
We have independently reviewed the entire record according to our obligations under Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and we have found no arguable issues on appeal. The court had discretion to grant or deny the motion to terminate wardship and we perceive no abuse of that discretion. (See In re Corey (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 813, 832.)

DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.



THOMPSON, J.


WE CONCUR:



FYBEL, ACTING P. J.



IKOLA, J.