Filed 3/29/17 In re D.H. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re D.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A149382

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. JV00934002 &
San Francisco City and County
Super Ct. No. JW166119)


D.H. (appellant) appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
A petition was filed by the San Francisco District Attorney on May 20, 2016, seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), and alleging that he committed one count of assault with a deadly weapon (rocks) (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) ; one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)); and felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)).
A second petition was filed on July 11 alleging that appellant had committed petty theft (cell phone) (§ 490.2, subd. (a)), and that he had possessed a stun gun (§ 22610, subd. (d)).
As to the first petition, appellant denied the allegations and a release from detention hearing was set for June 1. Thereafter a written motion for release was filed by counsel. At the release hearing the juvenile court ordered appellant released from direct custody and into home detention. However, following the filing of the second petition, appellant was again detained in custody by order dated July 13.
A jurisdictional hearing was held on the first petition beginning on July 18 and concluding on July 26. Among the matters considered by the juvenile court during the hearing were motions made by appellant: (1) to recuse the juvenile judge; (2) for mistrial; and (3) to recuse the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office. All of the motions were denied. Motions were also made by both sides and ruled on by the juvenile court relating to certain of the evidence expected to be presented at the contested jurisdictional hearing.
The following three witnesses were sworn and gave testimony during the petitioner’s case-in-chief: 7-Eleven employees Mohammad Tajamal and Gursharan Singh, and San Francisco Police Officer Nicholas Sepulveda. The defense then called as witnesses two of the charged minors, other than appellant, who admitted being present on the day of the incident. After testimony, the court heard arguments from counsel.
A motion was made by appellant’s counsel to dismiss counts one and two of the petition. The court granted the motion as to count one, but denied it as to count two. The court then sustained the petition as to counts two and three as felonies. The court also noted that because appellant resided out of the county and the second petition was still pending in San Francisco, the court would discuss the disposition of that petition “at the next calling of this case.”
On July 27, the San Francisco juvenile court dismissed the second petition in its entirety pursuant to section 1385. At that same hearing, the court ordered the case transferred to Alameda County for disposition as to the first petition, and the transfer was accepted by Alameda County on August 2.
A dispositional hearing was held on September 1. At that time appellant was declared a ward of the court under the supervision of the probation department, and he was placed in his mother’s home “under the standard conditions of probation,” which were read into the record by the juvenile court. No objections to the disposition, including the terms of probation, were made by appellant’s counsel.
The entire record has been reviewed, including the transcripts of the hearings referred to above, and we conclude that all findings made by the juvenile court were supported by the evidence. There were no errors in rulings on the in limine and evidentiary motions made prior to, and during, the jurisdictional hearing. All rulings, including the disposition, were fully supported factually, and were decided by the court in accordance with applicable legal principles, and were within the discretion of the juvenile court. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and we have concluded there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
 





_________________________
RUVOLO, P. J.


We concur:


_________________________
RIVERA, J.


_________________________
STREETER, J.
























A149382, In re D.H.