In re M.A. CA6
Opinion
Opinion
I. INTRODUCTION
The minor, M.A., appeals from the February 11, 2015 dispositional order that followed the minor’s admission that he committed vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The juvenile court declared the minor a ward of the court and ordered him to serve 30 days on the Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP). The court also ordered that the minor be returned to the custody of his parents on probation, which included supervision by the probation officer and several gang-related probation conditions. On appeal, the minor’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 that states the case and facts, but raises no issue. We notified the minor of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and we have received no response from the minor. Pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in People v. Kelly, supra, at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case.