In re D.B. CA1/5

Filed 12/30/20 In re D.B. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re D.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.B., A159503 Defendant and Appellant. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1800561)

Appellant D.B. appeals from an order continuing his status on non-wardship probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725.1 (See In re Do Kyung K. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 583, 587–591 [order appealable].) His court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.

Further statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

I. BACKGROUND On May 2, 2019, 17-year-old appellant was accompanied by two other peers and grabbed a cell phone from Ariana H. in San Francisco. She struggled with appellant, trying to get the phone back, and he punched her. Ariana H. was assisted by Jordan E., whom appellant also punched. Appellant admitted two counts of an amended wardship petition alleging grand theft person and battery with serious bodily injury in exchange for the dismissal of other charges and allegations. (§ 602; Pen. Code, §§ 487, subds. (c), 243, subd. (d).) The case was transferred from San Francisco to Contra Costa County. Appellant was a dependent of the court when he committed the offense in this case, and the probation officer recommended that he be granted non-wardship probation under section 725 and continue to be supervised under the dependency system. (§ 241.1.) At a disposition hearing held on June 17, 2019, appellant was granted probation without a declaration of wardship pursuant to section 725 and was placed in a group home. On August 15, 2019, the probation department filed a petition under section 777 alleging that appellant had violated his probation by failing to obey the rules of his placement. Certain facts were stricken and appellant admitted the petition as amended on August 29, 2019. On September 18, 2019, a second petition was filed under section 777 alleging appellant