Opinion
F061675
12-05-2011
In re ALEXANDER C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEXANDER C., Defendant and Appellant.
Erik R. Beauchamp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. 08CEJ601829-3)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.
. Judge Kalemkarian presided over appellant's jurisdiction hearing. Judge Harrell presided over appellant's disposition hearing.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David C. Kalemkarian and Alvin M. Harrell, Judges.
Erik R. Beauchamp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant, Alexander C., was charged on August 17, 2010, in a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 with misdemeanor possession of metal knuckles (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant was on probation for a prior adjudication that he feloniously received stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). At the conclusion of a contested jurisdiction hearing on December 6, 2010, the petition was found true by the juvenile court.
On December 28, 2010, the juvenile court ordered appellant to remain on probation upon various terms and conditions for an additional year, and ordered him to attend the Day Reporting Center substance abuse program for 180 days. On the condition that appellant complied with all program guidelines and objectives, he would attend the program for only 120 days. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
FACTS
On August 16, 2010, officers from the Clovis Police Department and the Fresno County Probation Department conducted a probation compliance check at appellant's home. During a search of appellant's bedroom, officers found a belt buckle that could easily be snapped off and used as metal knuckles. After waiving his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, appellant admitted to an officer that the knuckles belonged to him and he had purchased them from the internet.
Appellant testified that his mother helped him purchase the metal knuckles from the internet. Appellant thought the belt buckle would look good. Because the metal knuckles were for sale, appellant assumed they could be legally purchased. Appellant admitted he knew how the metal knuckles could be used as a weapon and that he had worn the belt buckle.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on August 11, 2011, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.