Opinion
C089904
01-14-2020
In re C.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.E., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PDL20190006)
This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende and Kevin S., we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
The People filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that C.E. (the minor) committed misdemeanor violations of being under the influence of a controlled substance (Xanax) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a); count I), public intoxication (liquor) (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f); count II), and possession of ammunition on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 30310, subd. (a); count III). Following a detention hearing, the court dismissed count I pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 as a matter of law given that Xanax was not a narcotic and thus did not qualify for purposes of Health and Safety Code section 11550.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
Thereafter, the minor filed a motion to suppress evidence (§ 700.1), arguing that statements he made to the school resource officer, and the search conducted by that officer in which a .22-caliber ammunition cartridge was recovered, violated section 625, subdivision (c), section 625.6, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 , and the due process clause applicable through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The People opposed the motion, arguing the minor had consented both to speak with the officer and to the search of his person, was not in custody for Miranda purposes and, in any event, the minor was not interrogated, but instead made spontaneous statements not subject to Miranda. Alternatively, the People argued the search of the minor was a lawful search incident to arrest premised upon the minor's display of multiple symptoms exhibiting his intoxication. Following an evidentiary hearing and argument of counsel, the juvenile court denied the minor's motion.
Thereafter, the minor admitted the truth of counts II and III. At disposition, he was declared a section 602 ward and placed on probation pursuant to section 725, subdivision (b). The minor's probation terms included that he obey all laws, attend school, abstain from alcohol, marijuana, and drug use, submit to drug testing, perform 20 hours of community service, complete 10 days of the juvenile work program, pay a $50 restitution fine (§ 730.6, subd. (b)(2)), and serve 60 days of electronic monitoring and 54 days in juvenile hall with credit for 54 days served. 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, supra, 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 note an error in the minute order from the disposition hearing on May 28, 2019, stating that the minor was placed on six months' probation. There was no temporal limit on the probation term imposed orally by the court or in the court's written order of probation. Rather, the matter was set for a six-month review. We shall order the juvenile court to amend the minute order to correct this clerical error. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor, we will affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court is ordered to correct the minute order from the May 28, 2019 hearing to delete the reference to the minor's probation having a term of six months and to forward a copy of the amended order to the juvenile probation department. The judgment is affirmed.
KRAUSE, J. We concur: MURRAY, Acting P. J. RENNER, J.