From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Mark B.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. A119621 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)

Opinion


In re MARK B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK B., Defendant and Appellant. A119621 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division March 17, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. JV070197

Rivera, J.

Mark B. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court and placing him on probation. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

On March 12, 2007, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging that defendant: (1) transported marijuana in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a); possessed marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359); and (3) presented false identification to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)). The following evidence was adduced at a contested jurisdictional hearing:

On February 11, 2007, at approximately 9:00 p.m., deputy sheriff Donald Scott was on routine patrol with Sergeant Mike Davis in Laytonville near Gravier’s Chevron gas station. They saw a BMW pull into the gas station and park at the gas pumps. Davis parked the patrol car about 10 feet behind the BMW, and Scott let his canine partner, a dog certified to identify narcotics, out of the car. Scott directed the dog toward the BMW after the BMW’s passengers—George Russell, the driver, and defendant, the passenger—exited from the car. The dog immediately alerted on the driver’s side of the car as well as the trunk. Davis detained defendant and Russell when they exited from the store. He opened the BMW’s car door and smelled a very strong odor of marijuana in the interior of the car. He found Jake Slater lying in the back seat. In the trunk, Scott found three large duffel bags containing 30 pounds of marijuana. It was packaged in at least one-pound increments in large wrapped bags. Scott seized $403 from defendant and $460 from Slater. Defendant did not have any identification and identified himself as Brennan B. Scott subsequently questioned him after he was transported to the Willits substation and asked him if his first name was Mark. Defendant did not respond to the inquiry. Scott later learned that defendant’s true name was Mark. The parties stipulated that, given the quantity and packaging of the marijuana found in the trunk, it was possessed for sale.

Sergeant Bruce Smith, testified that he was involved in the sheriff’s department’s program for eradication of marijuana and that he had prior experience working as a special agent on the narcotics task force. He testified that it was consistent with his experience that couriers are often employed in the transportation of marijuana, but that it would be unusual for a courier to bring someone along in the car who knew nothing about the marijuana sale. It was, however, common for couriers to have others with them for protection and as lookouts. Smith, who was also present at the scene, stated that no luggage was found in the BMW.

Following the presentation of the People’s case, the court granted defendant’s motion for acquittal as to the false identification charge and denied it as to the other charges.

In defense, defendant’s mother testified that on February 11, 2007, she gave defendant $480 and saw him get into the BMW. Defendant had a season pass at Heavenly and planned to stay at a friend’s apartment in the Tahoe area where he kept his clothing and equipment.

The juvenile court found that defendant transported marijuana. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the possession for sale count.

The matter was transferred from Mendocino County to Humboldt County for disposition because defendant resides in Garberville. At the dispositional hearing, the court declared defendant a ward of the court and placed him on probation for a maximum period of three years, 11 months and 28 days.

Defendant was represented by counsel and received a fair hearing. Substantial evidence supports the court’s findings. There was no error in the disposition. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.

The dispositional order is affirmed.

We concur: Reardon, Acting P. J., Sepulveda, J.


Summaries of

In re Mark B.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. A119621 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)
Case details for

In re Mark B.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK B., Defendant and Appellant.

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

Date published: Mar 17, 2008

Citations

No. A119621 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)