NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

O'ROURKE, J.

M.S. appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court continuing his wardship and committing him to the San Diego County Probation Youthful Offender Unit program following his admission to allegations that he committed a misdemeanor battery in violation of Penal Code section 242. Having conducted at his counsel's request an 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 affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court in 2013 after chasing his father with a sword in the "`ready' position" and failing to comply with police directives, kicking one officer, after they arrived. He was again adjudged a ward in 2015 after the court made a true finding he committed residential burglary. During those years, defendant participated in four separate residential treatment facilities but had only successfully completed one. Defendant has mental health issues that require him to take psychotropic medication, which he fails to take when released into the community. He admitted using alcohol and marijuana often in 2015. He also admitted associating with gangs. Defendant's mother had pleaded guilty in 2005 to disobeying a restraining order. He had resided with her until age seven, when he was removed from her care due to abuse from his stepfather. Defendant's father lived with his own parents who kept multiple guns in the home. Defendant's parents did not communicate with each other due to a "volatile" relationship; probation and other staff struggled with them to obtain placement paperwork or approval for necessary medication.

In August 2016, defendant was placed at DN Associates, a residential treatment facility. In mid-January 2017, sheriff's deputies responded to a call of an assault at DN Associates. Staff member T.H. reported that while he sat at a desk, defendant brushed his face with his hand, and when T.H. told defendant to stop, defendant grabbed T.H. by the throat and squeezed so that T.H. could not breathe for several seconds. When defendant let go, he asked T.H. why he did not fight back, calling him a "punk ass bitch." Defendant then punched T.H. several times and pushed him into a table.

The Fresno County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that defendant committed misdemeanor battery. Defendant admitted the count and the court transferred the case to San Diego for disposition. The San Diego juvenile court accepted the transfer in late-January 2017, and defendant was detained in juvenile hall pending the disposition hearing, which was set in early February 2017.

After two continuances the juvenile court held a disposition hearing on March 8, 2017. Prior to the hearing the probation officer recommended that defendant be committed to and successfully complete the Youthful Offender Unit program, with his custodial portion not to exceed 460 days. The probation officer also recommended multiple terms and conditions of probation. At the hearing, defendant's counsel requested that the juvenile court stay the Youthful Offender Unit program and release defendant to his mother on home supervision. The People opposed the request.

The juvenile court found that defendant's return to home was contrary to his welfare. It advised him that his overall maximum term of confinement was six years two months, and that he had 188 days of custody credits. It ordered defendant continued as a ward of the court and placed him in the custody of the probation officer under probation supervision based on a finding that he had been tried on probation while in custody and had failed to reform. The court committed defendant to the Youthful Offender Unit program, ordering him to successfully complete the program and abide by its terms and conditions, the custodial portion of which was not to exceed 480 days. It ordered defendant to comply with various terms and conditions.

Defendant filed a timely appeal from the order.

DISCUSSION

Defendant's appellate counsel has filed a brief, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record to determine whether there are arguable issues for appellate review. To assist this court, counsel identifies one issue "`that might arguably support the appeal'" under Anders: "Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in not staying the [Youthful Offender Unit] program and releasing minor to his mother on home supervision? (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726.)" We invited defendant to file a brief on his own behalf but he has not done so.

We review a juvenile court's commitment decision for abuse of discretion, indulging all reasonable inferences to support the decision. (In re Joseph H. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 517, 543.) "`A . . . commitment is not an abuse of discretion where the evidence demonstrates a probable benefit to the minor from the commitment and less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective or inappropriate.'" (In re Edward C. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 813, 829.)

We have considered these principles and independently reviewed the record consistent with the requirements of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738; considered the issue listed by appellate counsel; and found no reasonably arguable grounds to reverse or to modify the judgment. Defendant was at all times represented by counsel who protected his rights and interests. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that defendant's release to home was not in the interest of his welfare. Based on the record before us the juvenile court's commitment decision was well within the scope of its discretion. Nor does any error appear in any other aspect of the juvenile court's ruling. Appointed counsel has represented defendant competently on this appeal. The March 8, 2017 disposition order is therefore affirmed.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. and AARON, J., concurs.