Opinion
C089510
10-30-2019
In re C. C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C. C., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JDSQ1988)
The People filed a juvenile wardship petition against C. C. alleging the minor drove while under the influence (count 1), drove with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater (count 2), and drove without a license (count 3).
At a contested jurisdictional hearing, the People presented testimony of Officer Andrew Burnett, a highway patrol officer, who investigated an SUV parked on the side of Interstate 80 with its hazard lights illuminated. The minor was urinating at the back of the SUV. When he finished, the minor headed for the driver's door and started to open it. Burnett's partner -- Officer Phillip Figueroa -- asked the minor to answer some questions, and the minor admitted that he had driven the SUV from Woodland, but denied drinking that night. The minor displayed signs of intoxication and was arrested after failing field sobriety tests.
Officer Figueroa testified to performing tests to determine the minor's blood-alcohol content. The two samples, taken approximately two hours after the stop, put the minor's blood-alcohol content at 0.14 percent and 0.13 percent, respectively. Criminalist Nate Overlid testified that a person with the minor's characteristics who had provided similar samples could have had a blood-alcohol content of 0.17 percent or 0.16 percent at the time authorities contacted the minor.
The court sustained counts 1 and 2 and dismissed count 3 pursuant to the minor's Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1 motion. The minor was placed on probation for six months pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a). As part of his probation, he was also ordered to pay a $50 restitution fine (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (b)) and complete 40 hours of community service. The minor timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from the minor. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order) is affirmed.
/s/_________
Robie, J. We concur: /s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Murray, J.