Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J08-00564
Lambden, J.
This appeal is taken from the trial court’s jurisdictional hearing and dispositional order adjudging appellant a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 800. Appellant’s appointed counsel has identified no issues on appeal and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744. Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf.
BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2008, the Contra Costa District Attorney filed a petition (pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) charging appellant with one count of driving without a license, a misdemeanor, in violation of Vehicle Code section 12500, subdivision (a)(count one) and one count of resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer, a misdemeanor, in violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (count two). At a contested hearing on August 20, 2008, the Contra Costa Superior Court sustained the allegation of driving without a license (count one) and dismissed count two.
On February 20, 2008, Pittsburg Police Officer Erik Severe was driving westbound on Atlantic Avenue in Pittsburg when he witnessed appellant driving a car eastbound. As Severe passed appellant, he recognized him from previous contacts and knew appellant was under the age of 16 and did not have a driver’s license. Severe made a U-turn and followed appellant into the parking lot of the apartment complex where appellant lived. The car that appellant had been driving was parked in the parking lot and Severe witnessed someone running from the car. Severe chased the unidentified individual. As Severe rounded a corner in the apartment complex, he saw appellant running toward him. He yelled to appellant to stop running and sit down. Appellant stopped running, took a few steps toward Severe, and sat down. Severe placed appellant in handcuffs without incident. Officer Savage found a set of keys under appellant that fit the ignition of the car that appellant was seen driving.
At the September 4, 2008 dispositional hearing, the Contra Costa Superior Court refused appellant’s request for informal probation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a), and instead adopted the recommendations of the probation department for wardship without a termination date. The probation department provided the court with a report that outlined appellant’s extensive history of referrals to probation. Since 2006, appellant had been referred to probation seven times for various matters including sexual battery, loitering in a high drug area, driving without a license, and resisting arrest. Appellant has also been arrested and convicted two additional times for driving without a license.
In addition to ordering a wardship without a termination date, the court ordered a curfew, drug testing, 30 days of electronic monitoring with credit for time served in juvenile hall, and that appellant submit to search and seizure by any police officer. The court also ordered $25 in restitution, counseling, 30 hours of community service, and delayed the date that appellant could obtain a driving license by one year.
Juvenile delinquency proceedings are typically considered to be civil in nature and some appellate courts have held that Wende review is inapplicable to civil commitment cases. (See In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422; People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 30.) However, we are persuaded that the Wende procedure available in criminal proceedings may also be applied to juvenile delinquency hearings. (In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 103-106.) In Kevin S., the appellate court found that delinquency proceedings were sufficiently similar in substance and import to a criminal prosecution to permit Wende to apply.
Accordingly, we have reviewed the entire record in these proceedings and found no arguable issues. The record reflects that appellant was represented by counsel at all relevant times, and that appellant was informed of his rights. We also note that the court treated appellant in a considerate fashion and fully informed itself of the facts of the case and regarding appellant’s background. We are satisfied that the juvenile court made findings supported by substantial evidence before issuing its order that appellant be made a ward of the court without a specified termination date.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Kline, P.J., Richman, J.