Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J37566A1/5
Jones, P.J.
K.D. appeals from a disposition entered after the juvenile court found true allegations that she unlawfully possessed a firearm that was capable of being concealed, (Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (a)(1) ) and carried a concealed firearm. (§ 12025, subd. (a)(2).) Her counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that she had the right to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
All further section references will be to the Penal Code.
On August 29, 2008, near 11:00 p.m., Vallejo Police Officer Carl Dean was on patrol when he noticed seven or eight people standing in the middle of the street. Because the group scattered when they saw him, Dean turned on his spotlight. He recognized one of them as someone with whom he had prior contact. Dean got out of his car and asked the group if he could talk to them. When several of them agreed, Dean asked the group to sit on the curb.
Appellant was one of those on the curb. Officer Dean asked appellant if she possessed anything illegal. Appellant said no. Dean then asked if he could search her. Appellant said nothing but raised her hands in the air. Dean then conducted a pat search of appellant. He found a.38 caliber revolver tucked into appellant’s shoe.
Based on these facts a petition was filed alleging, inter alia, that appellant committed the offenses we have set forth above.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress. She argued she had been detained illegally on the night in question, and that she had not consented to a search The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant’s motion and denied it. The court then found the allegations of the petition to be true.
At disposition, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court, placed her in the custody of her mother, and placed her on probation subject to various terms and conditions.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion to suppress. (People v. Galindo (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1529, 1535; People v. Timms (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 86, 90.) The court found the allegations of the petition to be true and its findings are supported by substantial evidence. The court did not commit any prejudicial evidentiary errors. We see no error in the disposition. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The disposition is affirmed.
We concur: Needham, J., Bruiniers, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
.