From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Eduardo C. (In re Eduardo C.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN
Jan 31, 2012
B233177 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)

Opinion

B233177

01-31-2012

In re EDUARDO C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDUARDO C., Defendant and Appellant.

Richard L. Fitzer, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 8.115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ35018)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Davis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)

Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On July 28, 2010, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Ernesto Castaneda and his partner were on routine patrol when they stopped behind a white van that was impeding traffic through an alley. After smelling marijuana coming from the van, Castaneda asked the passenger, Eduardo C., whether he had any additional marijuana inside the van. Eduardo C. replied that he had a little more inside his backpack. The deputies ordered the adult driver and Eduardo C. out of the van and placed them in the backseat of the patrol car. Castaneda searched the van and found a marijuana cigarette. Inside the backpack, the deputy found a plastic baggie and a separate container of marijuana, a box of unused plastic baggies, and a digital scale. A search of Eduardo C. yielded a cellular phone, which displayed text messages concerning marijuana sales. The deputies detained Eduardo C. for possession for sale of marijuana. They cited and released the adult.

Deputy Castaneda walked to Eduardo's C.'s home to tell his mother that her son was in custody. On the walkway leading to the front door, the deputy saw a marijuana plant growing in a pot. Castaneda spoke to Eduardo C.'s mother and confiscated the plant. He then returned to the patrol car and advised Eduardo C. of his right to remain silent, to the presence of an attorney and, if indigent, to appointed counsel (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694]). Eduardo C. waived those rights and admitted the marijuana plant belonged to him.

The People filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 against Eduardo C. on September 28, 2010, alleging one count of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and one count of cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358).

The defense filed a motion for discovery under Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. The juvenile court heard and denied the motion. The court also heard and denied Eduardo C.'s motion to suppress evidence (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1).

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Eduardo C. admitted the allegation of cultivating marijuana. The juvenile court declared Eduardo C. to be a ward of the court and ordered him home on probation. The remaining count was dismissed on the People's motion.

We appointed counsel to represent Eduardo C. on appeal.

After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On November 7, 2011, we advised Eduardo C. he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Eduardo C.'s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (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, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The order is affirmed.

WOODS , J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

ZELON, J.


Summaries of

People v. Eduardo C. (In re Eduardo C.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN
Jan 31, 2012
B233177 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Eduardo C. (In re Eduardo C.)

Case Details

Full title:In re EDUARDO C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

Date published: Jan 31, 2012

Citations

B233177 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)