Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. JJ15871 Catherine J. Pratt, Commissioner.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHANEY, J.
On March 2, 2010 appellant was detained by police while walking on a sidewalk with a can of spray paint protruding from his jacket pocket. After admitting to spray painting walls and belonging to a street gang, appellant was Mirandized and found to be subject to search and seizure as a condition of probation. He then told police there was marijuana in his bedroom. Police retrieved the marijuana.
The District Attorney filed a three count petition, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging one felony count of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and two counts of vandalism causing over $400 in damage. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a).) Appellant denied the allegations.
The adjudication commenced on March 26, 2010. The court granted in part appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, excluding appellant’s statements regarding having spray painted walls but refusing to exclude his statement about possessing marijuana. The People indicated it would not proceed on the vandalism counts, and they were dismissed. Appellant admitted to the possession count and was ordered to a six-month camp confinement, with 120 days custody credit.
Appellant timely appealed the denial of his motion to exclude and the disposition.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues, and asking this court to independently review the record. On September 22, 2010 we advised appellant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-280; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J., ROTHSCHILD, J.