Opinion
B302103
08-21-2020
In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.S., Defendant and Appellant.
Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ29946) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gibson W. Lee, Judge. Affirmed. Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A.S. appeals from the juvenile court's order declaring him a ward of the court after finding he was in possession of a controlled substance. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A high school dean had 16-year-old A.S.'s backpack searched on campus. Inside the backpack were two bottles, one of which contained a mixture of cough syrup and soda. A criminalist with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's crime laboratory determined the cough syrup in the bottle contained codeine.
The People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging A.S. possessed a controlled substance (codeine) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, a misdemeanor. The juvenile court sustained the petition, declared A.S. a ward of the court, and ordered him home on probation.
A.S. timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent A.S. on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On February 14, 2020, we advised A.S. he had 30 days to submit a brief or letter raising any grounds for appeal, contentions or arguments he wanted us to consider. We have received no response.
We have examined the record and are satisfied that appellate counsel for A.S. has complied with her responsibilities that there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
FEUER, J. We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
SEGAL, J.