Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Super. Ct. No. JJ14406 Charles R. Scarlett, Judge.
Patricia Winters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RUBIN, J.
At about 9:00 a.m. on August 29, 2006, appellant Lorena Q. (the minor) and a companion, Romero, were walking in an alley when they were detained for a truancy investigation by Los Angeles police officer Mary Sapper. Romero stated that her identification was in her purse and gave Sapper permission to search the purse. Inside the purse, Sapper found, in addition to Romero’s identification (but not the minor’s), a black plastic bindle containing an off-white crystalline substance resembling about .03 gross grams of methamphetamine, which was analyzed and determined to be .02 grams net weight of methamphetamine. The minor announced that the substance was hers and that Romero was just holding it for her. Romero and the minor were both arrested. At the police station, after waiving her Miranda rights, the minor told Sapper that she had been using methamphetamine for the past five years; the purse that Romero was carrying and in which the methamphetamine were found was the minor’s purse and the minor had put the methamphetamine in that purse; the minor explained that Romero’s identification was also in the purse because the minor allowed Romero to keep some of her things in the purse; the minor stated that she wanted to take full responsibility for the methamphetamine because it was hers, not Romero’s.
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging the minor had been in possession of methamphetamine, a felony, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11277, subdivision (a).
At the hearing on the petition, the trial court overruled the minor’s objection to admission of the minor’s statement to Sapper, made on the grounds that, under the corpus delecti rule, there was insufficient evidence to establish the corpus delecti of the crime of methamphetamine possession other than the minor’s statements. (See People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1177 (Alvarez) [under Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(d), a corpus delecti objection to the introduction of a defendant’s statements is no longer valid].) It sustained the petition after denying the minor’s section 700.1 motion to dismiss, which was also made on the grounds of the corpus delecti rule. (Alvarez, supra, at p. 1171 [independent proof necessary to satisfy rule may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt]) After taking the minor’s waiver as to the sentencing judge pursuant to People v. Arbuckle (1978)22 Cal.3d 749 , the trial court transferred the matter to Kern County for disposition because the minor’s parents resided in Kern County.
On October 19, 2006, the Kern County court found count 1 to be a felony; it ordered the minor adjudged a ward of the court, placed her on probation not to exceed her 21st birthday, removed from the custody of her mother and committed to the Pathways Academy.
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on this appeal. After examination of the record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgment that she had been unable to find any arguable issues and requesting that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On June 21, 2007, we advised the minor that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. No response has been received to date. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The order under review is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.