Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DL032177, Frederick P. Aguirre, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul R. Ward, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
IKOLA, J.
The People petitioned to declare the minor, Angelique P., a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The People alleged possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Safety Code, § 11359, count 1), possession by a minor of a controlled substance (Penal Code section 308, subd. (b), count 2), and violating the Costa Mesa curfew (Costa Mesa Mun. Code, § 11-51.5, subd. (a), count 3). Following a bench trial, the court found the allegations of the petition true beyond a reasonable doubt, found the matter to be a felony/infraction with a maximum term of confinement of three years, declared the minor a ward of the court, and placed the minor on probation on terms and conditions including the successful completion of 25 days of a community work program.
Minor appealed and we appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on minor’s behalf. Counsel also advised that pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744, he had “searched for information that appears in the record and ‘might arguably support the appeal,’ and [had] found no potential issues.” Counsel requested we conduct an independent review of the entire record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Minor was given 30 days to file written argument in her own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from minor.
Upon our independent review, we agree with counsel’s assessment of this case. There are no arguable issues. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Costa Mesa Police Officers David Sevilla and his partner, Officer Hanson, were walking on opposite sides of a street at 10:30 p.m. when Officer Hanson noticed a shadow on Sevilla’s side of the street. Hanson yelled to Sevilla to alert him; Sevilla looked up and saw minor standing in a breezeway between two apartment complexes. Sevilla approached minor and asked how old she was. Minor stated she was 15 years old. Sevilla observed two 40-ounce beers on the ground where minor was standing, and asked minor if the beers were hers. Minor responded that they were. Officer Sevilla placed minor under arrest for violation of curfew and possession of alcohol.
Costa Mesa Municipal Code section 11-51.5 makes it unlawful for any minor to remain in any public place between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., subject to exceptions not here applicable.
The officer advised minor of her Miranda rights; she stated she understood. Incident to her arrest, Officer Sevilla searched minor and found a lighter, a plastic bag containing marijuana, a black case containing a digital scale, and a pipe. The bag containing the marijuana also held three additional empty plastic bags. Minor acknowledged the marijuana was hers, but explained she used the scale to avoid being “ripped off.” The officer weighed the marijuana with minor’s scale and found it amounted to 16 grams.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
Detective Joe Morales testified at trial as a drug expert and opined that possession of marijuana in the amount found on minor’s person, together with the digital scale, extra packaging materials, and “conflicted statements” made by minor led him to conclude minor possessed the marijuana for sale, and not for personal use.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record and are unable to find any arguable issue. The evidence recited above is manifestly sufficient to support the judgment. The only fairly debatable factual issue was whether the minor possessed marijuana for personal use or for sale. Although minor offered alternate explanations for her possession of a digital scale and extra packaging material — explanations which would support a personal use finding — the court was not compelled to believe her story, and the expert testified to the opposite conclusion. Finally, the terms and conditions of minor’s probation were appropriate and not overbroad.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J., ARONSON, J.