1

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 

 

 A159503

 (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.

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2

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 
3

had violated probation by failing to attend school, testing positive 

for THC and leaving a placement without permission. He 

admitted the allegations in the second petition on September 27, 

2019 and was released on home supervision. A disposition 

hearing on the violations was set for November 1, 2019, but 

appellant failed to appear and the court revoked his nonwardship probation.2

A third petition under section 777 was filed on November 7, 

2019, alleging appellant had violated probation by disobeying the 

rules of his placement and testing positive for THC. Appellant 

admitted the violation on November 15, 2019 and was ordered 

detained in juvenile hall. 

A disposition hearing was held on December 19, 2019. 

Appellant waived irregularities in the proceedings and the court 

adopted the probation officer’s recommendation. Appellant (now 

18 years of age) was ordered released from juvenile hall into the 

custody of his grandmother, and it was contemplated that he 

would go live with his father in Oklahoma. Non-wardship 

probation was reinstated under section 725 and continued until 

March 1, 2020, when the court anticipated it would terminate “if 

everything goes well.” The court ordered victim restitution to be 

determined at a later date as to Ariana H. and set it at zero as to 

Jordan E. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

2 Appellant filed a notice of appeal from this hearing, but 

that appeal was dismissed as premature because there was not 

yet any disposition. (See In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 

1129, 1138.)
4

II. DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders brief raising 

no issues. Appellant has been advised of his right to file a 

supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. (People v. Kelly

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) 

This appeal may be moot because the anticipated 

expiration date of appellant’s section 725 probation (March 1, 

2020) has passed. But even if it is not moot, our review of the 

record discloses no arguable issues. Appellant was advised of his 

constitutional rights before the admissions of his probation 

violations as well as the penal consequences of those admissions. 

He waived irregularities in the proceedings at the hearing on 

December 19, 2019 and was not declared a ward of the court. Nor 

was he placed in custody by the court’s December 19, 2019 order.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
5

NEEDHAM, J.

We concur.

SIMONS, Acting P.J.

REARDON, J. *

In re D.B. / A159503

* Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.