Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Marin County Super. Ct. No. JV23945B
Swager, J.
Tatiana P., a minor, appeals from an order following her admission that she violated Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1). Her counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to the minor, result in reversal or modification of the order. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has notified appellant that she can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the order.
All further references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Since the appeal is taken from an admission, we need only concisely recite the facts pertinent to the underlying petition as necessary to our limited review on appeal.
On October 2, 2006, appellant’s father reported that he and appellant had become embroiled in a disagreement. Appellant threw a shoe at a wall clock causing it to fall from the wall and shatter. Appellant was cited for vandalism, and a petition subsequently was filed on November 28, 2006, alleging that appellant violated section 594 subdivision (b)(2)(a).
Appellant’s father reported she was a runaway from her school on December 1, 2006. He advised the officer who responded that he had last seen her in Lee Gerner Park and believed that she was intoxicated since “she smelled of alcohol.” The officer went to the park where he observed a group of people that included appellant. Appellant was told to stop, but she fled. As other members of the group were being cited, appellant came to the location and announced, “I’m drunk, take me to jail.” She stumbled as she walked and the officer noticed that her eyes were red and detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath.
Appellant was placed in custody and taken to the hospital. After her release from the hospital, she was taken to the Novato Police Department and advised of her Miranda rights. She stated she understood those rights and waived them. She then stated that she had left school early, and stole brandy from the Albertsons store adjacent to the park to share with her friends. A PAS test revealed a blood-alcohol level of 0.08.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
A petition was filed on December 4, 2006, alleging appellant violated section 647, subdivision (f), section 148, subdivision (a)(1) and Business and Professions Code section 25662, subdivision (a). On December 15, 2006, she admitted the resisting a peace officer violation (§148, subd. (a)(1)). The remaining allegations were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
A contested dispositional hearing was held on December 29, 2006. The court read “the 601 report, the 241 report, and the psychological evaluation of Dr. Gillespie.” Several witnesses testified including appellant’s mother and father. At the conclusion of the hearing, appellant was declared a ward of the court, removed from the custody of her parents and placed on probation subject to several terms and conditions including no contact orders with several individuals. This appealed followed.
DISCUSSION
The minor was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Prior to admitting the allegation she was advised of her rights and waived those rights. The findings of the dispositional order, and the conditions of probation are reasonable and supported by the evidence.
DISPOSITION
After a full review of the record, we find no arguable issues and, accordingly, affirm the order.
We concur: Stein, Acting P. J., Margulies, J.