In re K.S. CA1/4

Filed 4/12/16 In re K.S. CA1/4 Received for posting 4/14/16

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re K.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A146801 v. (Sonoma County K.S., Super. Ct. No. J38089) Defendant and Appellant.

K.S. (appellant) appeals from a final judgment disposing of all issues between the parties. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of her right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues she chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally. A petition was filed by the Sonoma County District Attorney on September 17, 2014, seeking to have appellant adjudged a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 602,

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code except where otherwise specified.

1

subd. (a)), and alleged one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Appellant admitted the allegation after advisements, was adjudged to be a ward of the court, and placed with appellant’s mother. On December 9, 2014, the district attorney filed a petition to modify probation. (§ 777, subd. (a).) At a hearing on December 22, 2014, K.S. waived her constitutional rights and admitted allegations of leaving home without permission, missing curfew, and not participating in Vista Academy as required by her grant of probation. The juvenile court retained wardship and re-referred her to Vista Academy. On March 2, 2015,2 the district attorney filed a second petition to modify probation, alleging that appellant violated the terms of her probation by leaving home again without permission, and by not keeping the probation department advised of her whereabouts. At a hearing on March 12, appellant waived her constitutional rights and admitted the section 777 petition allegations that she left home without permission, and did not keep the probation department advised of her whereabouts. The court continued the matter until March 17, to allow appellant to be re-interviewed by Vista Academy. On March 17, the court was advised that Vista Academy agreed to give appellant another chance there. Appellant was ordered to comply with all program requirements and not to miss any more appointments with probation. She was retained as a ward, and ordered to her mother’s custody under house arrest, referred to as “community detention, level one.” On May 5, the district attorney filed a third petition to modify probation, alleging that appellant violated the terms of her probation by leaving home again without permission, and in not keeping the probation department advised of her whereabouts. On May 11, after being advised of her rights and voluntarily waiving them, appellant admitted the violation. The case was referred to the probation department for a disposition report, and the matter was continued to May 26.