Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J34031
Jones, P.J.
L. H. appeals from a disposition entered after the juvenile court found true allegations that he had committed several different criminal violations. His 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 he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
On January 27, 2008, shortly before 11:00 p.m., Officer Scott Yates of the Vallejo Police Department was on patrol when he was dispatched to an area near Sacramento Street to investigate a report that shots had been fired. The report indicated that three black males wearing “hoodies” were involved. When Yates arrived, he saw appellant and two other young black men. All were wearing “hoodies.” Yates ordered them to stop. Appellant and the others ran and hopped a fence. Another officer detained appellant.
Based on these facts, a petition was filed alleging appellant continued to come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he had resisted, delayed, or obstructed a police officer, (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1) ) and had violated a court imposed curfew order.
Unless otherwise indicated, all further section references will be to the Penal Code.
The court conducted a contested jurisdictional hearing where it found the allegations of the petition to be true.
Before the court could conduct a dispositional hearing, appellant committed additional offenses.
On May 24, 2008, Officer Steven Carnahan of the Fairfield Police Department stopped a car that had been stolen in Sacramento earlier that same month. Appellant was the driver. Appellant’s eyes were bloodshot and he smelled of alcohol. Appellant told the officer he had consumed some gin. Preliminary tests showed appellant had a blood alcohol level of approximately .013 percent. Another officer put handcuffs on appellant and placed him in the back of a patrol car. Officer Carnahan then asked appellant to identify himself. Appellant said his name was “Anthony McCray” and that he was born on June 22, 1990. Without being questioned further, appellant volunteered that he had purchased the car that he had been driving.
Based on these facts, a supplemental petition was filed alleging appellant continued to come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he had unlawfully taken or driven an automobile, (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) received stolen property, (§ 496d, subd. (a)) and that he gave false information to a police officer, (§ 148.9, subd. (a)) and was under the age of 21 and was driving with a blood alcohol level of greater than .01 percent. (Veh. Code, § 23136, subd. (a).)
The new allegations were addressed at a contested jurisdictional hearing where the court found all of them to be true except the receiving stolen property allegation which the court found to be duplicative.
At disposition, the court set appellant’s maximum term of confinement at 8 years, 10 months, and placed him on probation.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The court found the allegations of the petitions 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: Simons, J., Stevens, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.