In re Donovan B. CA1/2, A146987

Donovan B., age 16, admitted to resisting/obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code § 148(a)(1)); two other misdemeanor counts (evading an officer and driving without a license) were dismissed but the court retained authority to consider related facts.
Original petition filed in Alameda County; case transferred to Contra Costa County where minor lived with his mother; he had been on GPS/home supervision before additional incidents.
While on home supervision, Donovan violated terms after a family altercation (assaulting his 14‑year‑old brother, drug use, truancy), and probation recommended detention pending disposition.
Probation prepared dispositional report documenting substance use, school problems, family instability, moderate risk of reoffending, and recommended wardship with a six‑month commitment to Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility plus a 90‑day conditional release.
At disposition, defense asked for home supervision; the court found facts supporting a need for more intensive intervention (including driving/evading police, alleged stolen/rented vehicle, substance abuse, school problems, and moderate reoffense risk) and ordered an open‑ended wardship, commitment to Orin Allen for six months plus a 90‑day conditional release, and standard probation conditions upon return.
Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief raising no arguable issues; the court independently reviewed the record and affirmed the disposition, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing Donovan to a 6‑month Orin Allen placement with a 90‑day conditional release	The People/probation: placement was appropriate given offense circumstances, substance use, school problems, family instability, and moderate reoffense risk	Donovan: counsel sought home supervision and argued commitment was excessive for a first adjudication	Court: affirmed commitment; discretionary placement supported by probation report and court's findings — no abuse of discretion
Whether ordering an indefinite (open‑ended) wardship was improper	People: open‑ended wardship permissible under Welfare & Institutions Code and appropriate to ensure care/supervision	Donovan: challenged indefinite wardship as overbroad	Held: open‑ended wardship is authorized and not an abuse of discretion; minor may later petition termination

People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende brief/independent review procedure) (establishes appellate counsel’s duties and court’s independent review when no arguable issues are raised)
In re Eddie M., 31 Cal.4th 480 (rehabilitative purpose of juvenile proceedings and broad dispositional discretion)
In re Robert H., 96 Cal.App.4th 1317 (juvenile court should consider broad range of information and may weigh credibility when making dispositional orders)
In re Khamphouy S., 12 Cal.App.4th 1130 (appellate courts defer to juvenile court’s placement decisions absent abuse of discretion)
In re Walter P., 170 Cal.App.4th 95 (appellate review will not disturb probation conditions absent abuse of discretion)