1

Filed 7/10/15 In re B.T. CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE

In re B.T., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A144053

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. No. J41711)

17-year-old B.T. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order 

placing him in the juvenile hall’s Challenge Academy following a finding that he

unlawfully received a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). Appellant’s counsel 

has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we 

conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file 

a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we 

conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and shall affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Prior Proceedings

On December 5, 2012, appellant was declared a ward of the court and placed on 

probation in his mother’s care after he admitted one count of misdemeanor battery 

(Pen. Code, § 242). On January 10, 2013, a notice of hearing was filed alleging appellant 
2

had violated his probation by failing to obey his mother and abide by his curfew. 

Appellant admitted the curfew violation. 

On April 4, 2013, a notice of hearing was filed alleging appellant had violated his 

probation by failing to obey his mother and failing to abstain from marijuana. The next 

day, the juvenile court revoked appellant’s probation and issued a bench warrant for his 

arrest. Appellant surrendered himself to the police department and was booked into 

juvenile hall. He admitted he failed to obey his mother. The juvenile court continued its 

prior orders, placed appellant in juvenile hall, and gave probation discretion to release 

appellant to home detention with electronic monitoring. The court also ordered 

counseling and drug/alcohol and anger management services for appellant. 

On August 28, 2013, a notice of hearing was filed alleging appellant left home 

overnight without his mother’s permission and that his whereabouts were unknown. 

Appellant failed to appear for a mandatory weekend at juvenile hall, failed to abstain 

from drugs and alcohol, and failed to appear for a mandatory family therapy session. 

Appellant admitted he failed to appear for a mandatory weekend and the juvenile court 

continued its prior orders. 

On October 15, 2013, a notice of hearing was filed alleging appellant failed to 

attend school and failed to abide by a curfew. He admitted he failed to attend school and 

the juvenile court continued its prior orders. Another notice of hearing was filed 

November 21, 2013, alleging appellant failed to attend school and abide by conditional 

release orders, and had failed to drug test as ordered. A bench warrant was issued the 

following day. Appellant admitted he failed to attend school, and the juvenile court 

removed appellant from his mother’s care and ordered, among other things, mental health 

counseling and drug and alcohol services, and imposed gang-related terms and 

conditions. A 15-day-review indicated appellant had been placed at Wilderness 

Recovery Center. 

On January 21, 2014, a notice of hearing was filed alleging appellant left his 

placement without permission and that his whereabouts were unknown. A bench warrant 

was issued. 
3

On February 3, 2014, a wardship petition was filed alleging appellant committed 

misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)). The juvenile court sustained one count of 

misdemeanor petty theft after a contested jurisdictional hearing, and ordered appellant 

into placement. Appellant appealed, and we affirmed the dispositional order by written 

opinion filed October 27, 2014. (In re B.T. (Oct. 27, 2014, A141168) [nonpub. opn.].) 

Thereafter, appellant admitted he violated his probation, and the juvenile court vacated its 

placement order and terminated probation unsuccessfully on August 20, 2014, in light of 

the family’s intent to move to Florida. 

Current Proceedings

On December 15, 2014, a new wardship petition was filed under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 602, subidivision (a) alleging counts of unlawful taking of a 

motor vehicle and receiving a stolen vehicle. The petition was based on an incident that 

occurred on December 11, 2014. That day, appellant was arrested with three other 

youths when they were found near a crashed car on the side of the road. All four gave

conflicting stories about the car, which had been stolen out of Vallejo. Appellant 

consistently denied knowing that the car had been stolen, and said he felt betrayed and 

hurt by his friends. 

Appellant admitted the receiving a stolen vehicle charge (Pen. Code, § 496d(a)), 

which was reduced by agreement to a misdemeanor. The probation department 

recommended that appellant be placed at the juvenile hall’s Challenge Academy. The 

department noted his history of non-compliance with community-based services and his 

pattern of running away from placements. At a contested dispositional hearing, the 

probation officer who authored the report testified that Challenge Academy was a ninemonth program that focused on changing poor thinking and choice patterns. She agreed 

that other group home placements were available, but opined that appellant needed a 

higher level of treatment because he had continued to make poor decisions. The district 

attorney argued that returning appellant home was not appropriate because communitybased services had not been effective. 
4

Appellant’s mother addressed the court and stated that appellant had not realized 

what he was getting into when he accepted the ride from his friends, and that he was 

being unfairly punished. She stated that his grades in school were improving, and that 

her own relationship with appellant was getting better. She asked that he be returned to 

her, with mandatory counseling and drug testing imposed. Appellant also addressed the 

court, stating he had joined a skate team in Vallejo and was working on improving his 

relationship with his stepfather and mother. He asked for one more chance to 

demonstrate that things had improved at home, and that he would not offend in the future. 

Defense counsel argued that appellant had been doing better and that his relationship with 

his mother had improved. Counsel argued that appellant’s criminal behavior was minor, 

that he did not pose a danger to the community, and that his conduct did not justify the 

nine-month commitment entailed by a Challenge Academy order. 

The juvenile court stated that the primary purpose of the juvenile law was to

rehabilitate minors. It noted that a referral to the Family Preservation unit had been 

unsuccessful because appellant would not do what he was supposed to do. The court 

noted that he had failed at Wilderness Outreach and had been unable to get through Rites 

of Passage. The court stated that it had only terminated probation because the family was 

moving to Florida, a move that did not take place. The court found that appellant’s 

history showed that sending him home would not be successful, and that a commitment 

to New Foundations was not appropriate because drug or alcohol addiction was not his 

problem. It found there were no other programs that would fit his needs, and that the 

mental health and corrective thinking components of the Challenge Academy were

appropriate and necessary. The court imposed wardship and committed appellant to the 

probation department’s care and custody for placement at the Challenge Academy. 

Appellant was placed at the Challenge Academy on January 12, 2015. 

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d 436, and asks this court to independently review the entire record to determine 

if it contains any issues which would, if resolved favorably to the appellant, result in 
5

reversal or modification. A review of the record has disclosed no reasonably arguable 

appellate issue, and we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with her

responsibilities. (Ibid.; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) The record shows 

appellant entered his admission knowingly and willingly. The juvenile court did not 

abuse its discretion by placing appellant at the Challenge Academy. Appellant was 

adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. There was no 

sentencing error. There are no issues that require further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Siggins, J.

_________________________

Jenkins, J.