In re D.G. CA5

Filed 8/6/13 In re D.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F066405

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11CEJ600879-1V2)

v. D.G., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A. Gaab, Judge. Donna J. Hooper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Franson, J.

Appellant, D.G., a minor, was initially adjudged a ward of the juvenile court on November 28, 2011, following her adjudication of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The court declared the offense to be a felony and placed appellant on probation. On August 1, 2012,1 appellant admitted allegations that she violated her probation by failing to attend and complete her court-ordered anger management program, obey directives of the probation department, obey all laws, and refrain from associating with her coparticipants in the robbery of which she was adjudicated. That same date, the court readjudged appellant a ward of the court, continued her on probation and ordered that she participate in the Girl‟s Treatment Program. On November 7, a supplemental wardship petition was filed in which it was alleged appellant violated her probation by failing to obey all laws and “[f]ail[ing] to refrain from possessing stolen property.” On November 28, appellant admitted the latter allegation. At the disposition hearing on December 12, the court ordered appellant committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) and set appellant‟s maximum period of confinement at five years, less 235 days credit for time served. The instant appeal followed. Appellant‟s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court‟s invitation to submit additional briefing. We affirm.