In re D.B. CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 9/3/26 In re D.B. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re D.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, E087293 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J303888) v. OPINION D.B., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Geraldine Williams, Judge. Affirmed.

Asya Ovsepyan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

D.B. appeals from the juvenile court’s order entered on October 6, 2025, removing him from his parents and directing that he be held in juvenile hall in the custody of the 1 probation officer pending placement in a foster care facility. We appointed counsel to represent D.B. on appeal, and counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In March 2025, the People filed a petition pursuant to subdivision (a) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in San Bernardino County Superior Court alleging that D.B. committed attempted robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211.) (Unlabeled statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) In April 2025, D.B. admitted the allegation, and the juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court, granted probation, and placed him in the custody of his mother.

In May 2025, the People filed a subsequent section 602 petition alleging that D.B.

committed second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The following month, D.B.

admitted the robbery, and the court continued him a ward of the court and continued him on probation in his mother’s custody with the additional term that he serve 30 days in San Bernardino County Juvenile Hall, with 20 days of actual custody credit.

In August 2025, the Riverside County District Attorney (District Attorney) filed a section 602 petition in Riverside County alleging that D.B. committed organized retail theft (Pen. Code, § 490.4, subd. (a)(1)) and grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). The District Attorney subsequently filed an amended section 602 petition additionally alleging that D.B. committed second degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) D.B. admitted the 2 burglary charge, and the court dismissed the remaining allegations. The court then granted the District Attorney’s motion to transfer the case to San Bernardino County.

In September 2025, the People filed a subsequent section 602 petition in San Bernardino County alleging that D.B. violated the condition of his probation requiring him to follow all laws, local ordinances, and all orders of the court, because he was arrested in Riverside County for organized retail theft and grand theft, was not attending school, and was smoking marijuana and vaping nicotine. The court held a hearing on September 22, 2025, and granted the People’s motion to dismiss the Riverside County transfer-in petition. The following week, D.B. admitted that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation by committing organized retail theft and grand theft, and the court dismissed the remaining probation violation allegations.

The court held a contested dispositional hearing on October 6, 2025. Following testimony by the probation officer and D.B.’s mother, defense counsel asked the court to order that D.B. remain on probation in his mother’s care. The court denied the request and ordered D.B. removed from his mother’s care and placed in the probation officer’s custody in juvenile hall pending his placement in foster care.

DISCUSSION

D.B.’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing D.B. in a short- term residential therapeutic program and (2) whether D.B.’s appeal from the court’s placement order is moot once he returns home. Counsel asked that we conduct an 3 independent review of the record. We advised D.B. that he had 30 days to file a personal supplemental brief, and we received no response.

We have independently reviewed the record and found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to D.B. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Accordingly, we affirm the court’s October 6, 2025, order.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s October 6, 2025, order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MENETREZ J.

We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

FIELDS J.