Filed 7/11/17 In re D.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074908

(Super. Ct. No. 14CEJ600011-3)


OPINION
THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly Nystrom-Geist, Judge.
Carol A. Koenig, 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 former minor D.S. 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.) D.S. was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from D.S. We find no arguable issues on appeal.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On October 18, 2016, the Juvenile Delinquency Department of the superior court filed a notice of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 hearing to consider sealing the records in three of D.S.’s section 602 cases.
The probation officer prepared a report in anticipation of the hearing on the matter. On the February 11, 2014 petition, in case No. 14CEJ600011-1 (case No. 1), D.S. had failed to complete any of the four ordered treatment programs. On the June 4, 2014 petition, in case No. 14CEJ600011-2 (case No. 2), D.S. had completed her J.J.C. (Juvenile Justice Campus) commitment, but had failed to complete the other three ordered programs. On the November 19, 2014 petition, in case No. 14CEJ600011-3 (case No. 3), D.S. had completed the 63-day custodial program, but had not satisfactorily completed the other terms and conditions of probation. The probation officer recommended the juvenile court find that D.S. had not satisfactorily completed the probation terms and conditions in petitions 1, 2, and 3, and deny section 786 relief. On November 4, 2016, the juvenile court found that D.S. had not substantially complied with the reasonable orders or terms of probation or supervision that were within her capacity to perform. Accordingly, the court declined to dismiss and seal any of the cases under section 786.
On December 22, 2016, D.S. appealed the juvenile court’s denial of section 786 relief in case No. 3.
We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s findings and order denying Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 relief in case No. 14CEJ600011-3 are affirmed.