Filed 4/20/17 In re Robert G. CA5




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


In re ROBERT G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074049

(Super. Ct. No. 15CEJ600658-1V)


OPINION
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Gregory T. Fain, Judge.
George J. Vasquez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for appellant, minor Robert G., asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case. Appellant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment.
Following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On October 16, 2015, appellant was the subject of a wardship petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code 602. The petition alleged appellant committed the crimes of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1)) and battery (Pen. Code, § 242). Appellant was declared ineligible for deferred entry of judgment because the dissuading a witness allegation was charged as a felony. Upon the People’s motion, the court reduced the charge to a misdemeanor. Appellant later admitted to the reduced charge in exchange for the People dismissing the battery charge. The court declared appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation. At the disposition hearing on March 28, 2016, the parties noted appellant had admitted to extensive marijuana use in speaking with the probation department. Appellant’s probation terms, therefore, included requirements that he obey all laws, attend school, and not possess or use illegal drugs.
On June 6, 2016, the People filed a supplemental petition for modification under section 777, alleging appellant violated the terms of his probation. Specifically, the petition alleged appellant failed to complete an ordered treatment program, failed to refrain from using marijuana, as evidenced by a positive drug test, and failed to attend school, amassing 55 unexcused class absences, 16 class suspensions, and four tardies. Appellant admitted to having a positive drug test as alleged in the petition and waived advisement of the consequences of his admission. At the dispositional hearing on
June 27, 2016, the juvenile court revoked and reinstated appellant’s probation. In doing so, the court added GPS monitoring and family counseling to its previously imposed probation terms. The juvenile court then denied appellant relief under section 786, which permits a juvenile to seal their records upon successful completion of probation, finding appellant’s multiple alleged probation violations demonstrated he had not complied with the terms and conditions of probation.
This appeal timely followed.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.