Filed 5/3/13 In re William W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 WILLIAM W., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F065626

(Super. Ct. No. JW101780-03)

OPINION

THE COURT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jon E. Stuebbe, 

Judge.

Randall Conner, 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 Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Detjen, J.
2

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On January 30, 2006, appellant, William W., waived his rights and admitted an 

allegation that he committed lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14 years old in 

violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).1 Appellant was placed on probation 

for a period not to exceed his 21st birthday. In January 2009, a supplemental petition was 

filed alleging that appellant had failed in his placement in four group homes. In February 

2009, appellant was committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of 

Juvenile Facilities (DJF). 

The California Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 

94, limiting commitments to DJF to offenses enumerated in Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 707, subdivision (b). The Legislature passed emergency legislation 

effective February 29, 2012, in response to the decision in C.H., amending Welfare and 

Institutions Code sections 731 and 733 so that a minor may be committed to DJF if the 

offense is described in either subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 

or subdivision (c) of Penal Code section 290.008.2

On April 12, 2012, appellant’s commitment to DJF was recalled and the juvenile 

court placed appellant on probation. On May 7, 2012, a petition was filed pursuant to 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, alleging that appellant violated the terms of 

his probation by failing to follow his probation officer’s instructions to stay at the Rescue 

 

1 Appellant had a prior sustained allegation filed in previous petitions pursuant to 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Appellant committed a misdemeanor criminal 

threat in 2003 (Pen. Code, §§ 422 & 17). 

2 Penal Code section 290.008, subdivision (c)(3) includes a violation of any 

provision of Penal Code section 288. The legislature also enacted Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 1752.16 which permits counties to enter into agreements with 

DJF to house minors who have committed an offense enumerated in Penal Code section 

290.008. 
3

Mission until he found a permanent residence. Appellant’s probation officer testified that 

appellant called him one night and stated that he was not sleeping in the Rescue Mission, 

his then reported address, but was sleeping in an alley. The probation officer had 

previously explained to appellant that he was to check into the Rescue Mission every 

evening, and appellant’s call to him was not an appropriate means of notification that his 

address had changed. The juvenile court found that appellant violated the terms of his 

probation. 

On July 9, 2012, the juvenile court continued appellant’s probation and committed 

him to DJF temporarily for a term not to exceed his 21st birthday.3 We review the appeal 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that 

summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the 

record independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes 

the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his 

own brief with this court. By letter on January 16, 2013, we invited appellant to submit 

additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.

After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no 

reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.

DISPOSITION

The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

 

3 Appellant was born in December 1991 and turned 21 in December 2012.