1 Filed 12/ 30 /20 In re D.B. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 h is status

o n non

- wardship probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions

Code section 725

. 1 (See In re Do K yung K. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4 th
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 a ppellant was accompanied by

two other peers and grabbed a cell phone from Ariana H. in San

Francisco

. S he struggled with appellant, trying to get the phone
back, and he punched her

. Ari a na H

. was assisted by Jordan E.

, who m appellant also punched

. Appellant admitted two counts of an amended wardship
petition alleging gran d theft person and battery with serious
bodily injury in exchange for the dismissal of other charges and
allegations. ( § 602; Pen. Code, §§ 48 7, sub d s . (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

tha t he be granted non

- wardship proba tion under section 725 and

continue to be supervised under the dependency system

. (§ 241. 1 .) A t a disposition hearing held on June 17, 2019,
appellant was granted probation without a declaratio n 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, 201 9. On September 1 8 , 2019, a

second petition was filed under section 777 alleging appellant3

had violated probation by failing to attend school, testing positive

for THC and leaving a placement without permission. He

admitted th e 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 cour t revo k ed his non

w ardship 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 h eld on December 19, 2019.

A ppellant waived irregularities in the proceeding s and t he court
adopted the probation officer’s recommenda tion . A ppellant (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

. ” T he court ordered victim restitution to be

determined at a later date as t o Ari ana 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.4 th 1 129, 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 th e 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 di scloses no arguable issues. Appellant was advised of his

constitutional right s before the admissions of his probation

violations as well as the penal consequences of those admissions

. He waived irregularities in the proceedings at t he hearing on

December 19, 2019 and was not declared a ward of the court . N or was he placed in custod y 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, assigne d by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.