Filed 8/19/14 In re J.E. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 TWO
In re J.E., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
E060231
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. J246123)
v.
OPINION
J.E.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Brian Saunders,
Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel R. McCarthy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile wardship petition was filed
alleging that defendant and appellant J.E. (minor) committed the following offenses:
1
carrying a switchblade knife (Pen. Code, § 21510, count 1),1 possession of tools to
commit vandalism or graffiti (§ 594.2, subd. (a), count 2), and vandalism with damage
under $400 (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A), count 3). Minor admitted the allegation in count 3.
A juvenile court found the allegation true and dismissed the other counts. At the
disposition hearing, the court declared minor a ward and placed him on probation, in the
custody of his grandparents. Several subsequent wardship petitions were filed alleging
that minor either violated his probation or committed other offenses. The court continued
minor as a ward, but eventually found that previous dispositions had failed and that minor
needed a closed setting with substantial counseling. The court ordered him committed to
the Gateway program at a youth educational and residential facility (Gateway).
Minor filed a timely notice of appeal regarding the disposition. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 25, 2012, a juvenile wardship petition was filed, alleging that minor
committed the following offenses: carrying a switchblade knife (§ 21510, count 1),
possession of tools to commit vandalism or graffiti (§ 594.2, subd. (a), count 2), and
vandalism with damage under $400 (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A), count 3). Minor admitted the
allegation in count 3, and the court found the allegation true and dismissed the other
counts. The court declared minor a ward and placed him on probation, in the custody of
his grandparents.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
On February 27, 2013, a juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that minor
had violated his probation by failing to report to the probation officer as directed, failing
to return home by his curfew, and failing to report to the probation officer that he was
cited by law enforcement. Minor’s whereabouts were unknown, so a bench warrant was
issued for his arrest.
Minor was eventually arrested on his bench warrant. At the same time, he was
arrested for other offenses and, on March 19, 2013, another juvenile wardship petition
was filed. This petition alleged that minor committed the offenses of second degree
burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459, count 1), trespass (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (m),
count 2), and possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a),
count 3). Minor admitted count 1, and the court continued him as a ward in the custody
of his grandparents. The court dismissed the other allegations, as well as the petition
dated February 27, 2013.
On May 24, 2013, a subsequent juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that
minor committed the offenses of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (a)(1), count 1) and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851,
subd. (a), count 2). Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the court reduced count 1 to a
misdemeanor, and minor admitted both allegations. The court continued minor as a
ward, and detained him in juvenile hall, awaiting placement in a foster care facility. The
court continued minor on probation, with a few added terms.
On September 10, 2013, another juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that
minor violated his probation by leaving his placement facility without permission.
3
However, on the court’s own motion, the petition was dismissed. The court continued
minor as a ward and ordered him to return to the same facility.
On October 18, 2013, a juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that minor
violated his probation by disobeying the regulations of the placement. Specifically, it
was alleged that he: (1) altered his daily point documentation without permission;
(2) possessed a cell phone; (3) encouraged another placement client to leave the facility
without permission; and (4) insulted another minor. Minor admitted the second
allegation, and the court dismissed the other ones. At a dispositional hearing on
December 13, 2013, the court found that the prior dispositions had failed and were not
effective in rehabilitating minor. The court found it necessary to commit him in a closed
setting. In accordance with the probation officer’s recommendation, the court continued
minor as a ward, removed custody from the grandparents, and committed him to the
Gateway program. The court found that minor had a total available confinement time of
four years, with 167 days of credits.
DISCUSSION
Minor appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent
him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493]
setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and one potential arguable
issue: whether the court abused its discretion in ordering that minor be placed at
Gateway. Minor has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
4
We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he
has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
5