Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVA027851. Keith D. Davis, Judge.
Jamie Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
RICHLI, J.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2006, an officer assigned to the Rialto narcotics team was informed about defendant selling methamphetamine. The officer was later contacted by a sergeant to stop a vehicle driven by defendant. During the valid vehicle stop, defendant was observed handing something to the passenger, who appeared to then put it down her pants. Upon contact with defendant, it was determined that he was on parole. A search of defendant’s person revealed a large amount of money, mostly in $20 increments.
On October 17, 2006, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with one count of transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) (count 1) and one count of possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)) (count 2). The complaint further alleged that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)).
On March 1, 2007, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant, represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to count 1 for a stipulated sentence of three years and the dismissal of the remaining charges and allegations. On April 19, 2007, defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement with credit for time served.
Defendant appealed based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. In his supplemental one-page letter brief, defendant makes arguments related to his release upon parole and his three-year sentence. We have reviewed the entire record and the contentions both of counsel and defendant and have not found any arguable issues.
II
ANALYSIS
Defendant argues that since he was committed to state prison, his California Youth Authority (now referred to as Division of Juvenile Facilities, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)) parole should be dismissed in the interest of justice. We disagree. Several cases have held that when there has been no finding that a defendant was unfit for the juvenile court, the juvenile court does not relinquish jurisdiction simply because a ward commits a new crime while an adult. These cases hold that in this situation the ward remains subject to juvenile court supervision even though tried and punished as an adult for subsequent crimes. (See In re Mikeal D. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 710, 716-718; In re Donald B. (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 804, 806-808; In re Larry T. (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 969, 972-974; see also Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707.01; In re Ivan T. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 624, 630-632.)
In the absence of any finding of unfitness, DJJ does not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction over defendant so he can continue DJJ parole, imposed for crimes committed while a juvenile, after serving his adult prison term for the subsequent offense of transportation of a controlled substance. Hence, defendant would be subject to dual supervision upon his release from prison.
Moreover, defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal and his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause forecloses his contentions. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1100; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 86.)
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J., MILLER, J.