Filed 6/20/17 In re J.J. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


In re J.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.J.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A148789

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J1400282)

J.J. challenges a disposition order removing him from his mother’s home and detaining him in juvenile hall pending a court-approved out-of-home placement. Following entry of this order, J.J. was placed in a court approved program. When the program closed, J.J. was returned to his mother’s home.
His counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting that we conduct an independent review of the record. Minor was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and shall affirm the order.
Background
On April 10, 2015, following his admission to one count of misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)), the juvenile court adjudged J.J. a ward of the court, ordered home supervision for 90 days, four weekends in juvenile hall and 100 hours of community service. On May 21, 2015, J.J. admitted to a supplemental petition alleging one count of driving without a license. He further admitted that he had violated his probation by testing positive for THC. Wardship was continued and J.J. was committed to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for a six-month program, plus an additional 90-day conditional release period. On August 19, 2015, J.J. admitted violating his probation by assaulting another ward at the facility. The court imposed an additional 15 days of commitment time for the violation. On February 16, 2016, the court found that J.J. had completed his commitment and conditional release period successfully. J.J. remained on probation, subject to the usual conditions.
On April 25, 2016, J.J.’s probation officer filed a notice of probation violation, contending that J.J. had been truant from school several times, had failed to comply with his curfew twice, and had tested positive for THC on April 5. On April 29, J.J. admitted all the alleged probation violations. On May 5, an additional notice of probation violation was filed averring that on April 26, J.J. was issued a traffic ticket for driving without a license and at night without headlights. On May 6, J.J. admitted the additional violation. The juvenile court consolidated the two matters and set them for a disposition hearing.
At the May 13 disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered placement at a court-approved home or institution. On June 3, 2016, J.J. was placed at the Wilderness Recovery Center . On June 27, 2016, J.J. timely filed a notice of appeal from the dispositional order.
Wilderness Recovery closed while the appeal was pending and on October 18, 2016, the court placed J.J. on home supervision.
Discussion
Neither appointed counsel nor minor has identified any issue for our review. Upon our own independent review of the record, we agree that none exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
The minor was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The juvenile court found out-of-home placement appropriate after he admitted violating his probation twice within months of completing the program at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility. The juvenile court concluded, in accordance with the probation officer’s report and with the concurrence of J.J.’s counsel, that the minor needed more intensive supervision to help him succeed, and substantial evidence supports this conclusion. The disposition was clearly within the juvenile court’s discretion. (In re Lorenza M. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 49, 53; Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 725.5, 727, 730.)
Disposition
The disposition order is affirmed.

Pollak, Acting P.J.

We concur:

Siggins, J.
Jenkins, J.