Opinion
F042791.
10-28-2003
In re BARRY R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BARRY R., Defendant and Appellant.
Derek K. Kowata, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Carlos A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
THE COURT *
In his second appearance before the juvenile court, 13-year-old Barry R. admitted allegations in an 01 petition of misdemeanor driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and violating the terms of his probation by committing that offense and testing positive for marijuana use (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777, subd. (a)(2)). Additional allegations of vehicle theft and vandalism were dismissed. Before the scheduled disposition hearing, two additional petitions were filed. The 02 petition alleged resisting arrest and possession of smoking paraphernalia. It was dismissed with a restitution and Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754). The 03 petition alleged drug offenses. Barry admitted an allegation of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), a felony, and an allegation of unlawful sale or transportation of marijuana was dismissed.
At the disposition hearing on March 20, 2003, for the 01 and 03 petitions, the juvenile court adjudged Barry a continuing ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), correctly calculated the maximum period of confinement as three years and six months and awarded 50 days of presentence custody credit. The court ordered Barry continued on probation until age 21 under the usual terms and conditions. Finally, the court remanded Barry to the custody of the probation department to be suitably placed. This appeal followed.
FACTS
On August 2, 2002, following a theft offense, Barry was adjudged a ward of the court, granted probation, and ordered not to use or possess any drug or intoxicant. Three months later on November 8, Barry stole a car, crashed it into a fence and tree, and fled the scene. He was apprehended a short time later and appeared to be under the influence. His urine tested positive for marijuana.
On February 28, 2003, an apartment manager saw Barry selling drugs at the complex. The manager told Barry he was making a citizens arrest and attempted to subdue him. As the two struggled, a bystander yelled that Barry had a gun. Barry retrieved a BB gun from his waistband, but the manager was able to take it from him. Barry denied selling marijuana and said the baggie the manager had found in his pants was for personal use. During booking, nine additional baggies of marijuana were found in Barrys pants.
Barrys mother was unable to control him. She reported that he refused to go to counseling or to school and he was not currently enrolled in any school program.
At the dispositional hearing on March 20, 2003, Barry asked to be placed at Juvenile Hall, where he had been detained since February 28, 2003, then released to his mother and ordered to participate in a work program. Counsel argued that although Barrys performance in the hall was not "sparkling," he was adjusting. The court found on ample evidence, however, that Barry had been tried on probation in the custody of his parents and had failed to reform. The court ordered that he remain in juvenile hall pending placement in a suitable facility. It also ordered counseling as deemed necessary by the probation officer for Barrys parents.
DISCUSSION
Barrys appointed counsel filed an opening brief, which raised no issues and asked that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We invited Barry to file a personal brief; he has not done so.
Our independent review of the record failed to disclose any reasonably arguable issues. A reasonably arguable issue is one that has "a reasonable potential for success" and one that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, will result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App. 3d 106, 109.)
The judgment is affirmed.