In re Carl J.

Full title: In re CARL J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court: Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.

Date published: Oct 15, 2003

No. D042170 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2003)

Opinion

D042170.

10-15-2003

In re CARL J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL J., Defendant and Appellant.

McDonald

Carl J. entered a negotiated admission to looking into the interior of a bathroom with the intent to invade privacy (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (k)). The court placed him with his mother under the probation officers supervision. After Carl admitted violating probation conditions, the court revoked probation and detained him in the sheriffs custody, noting that he was no longer a minor.¹ At the dispositional hearing, the court ordered him to serve six months in an age-appropriate facility, the San Diego County Jail, with probation to terminate upon his release and be deemed unsuccessful. Three days later, the court amended its dispositional order nunc pro tunc to provide that Carl serve 120 days in juvenile hall.² Carl appeals. We affirm.

1 Carl was 18 years eight months old.

2 Carl was 18 years nine months old.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. She presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.³ Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, she refers to as a possible but not arguable issue, whether, in light of the circumstances surrounding the violation of probation conditions, the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing Carl to juvenile hall for 120 days.

3 Because Carl entered an admission, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the true finding. (In re Uriah R. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1157, fn. 2.) We need not recite the facts.

We granted Carl permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Carl has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

Judgment affirmed.

WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. and AARON, J.