Opinion
B233629
12-07-2011
In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.M., Defendant and Appellant.
Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JJ18623)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Diane Reyes, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Minor J.M. (minor) admitted the allegation in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition that he possessed methamphetamine, and the juvenile court therefore sustained the petition and placed him on probation. On appeal, his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that this court independently review the entire record to determine if there are any issues which if resolved in minor's favor would require reversal or modification of the order sustaining the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.
Based on our independent review of the record, we affirm the juvenile court's order sustaining the section 602 petition.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
According to the record, on December 8, 2010, City of Los Angeles police officers responded to minor's school in response to a report that a narcotics suspect was being detained by school personnel. Upon arrival, the officers met with a security officer who informed them that a camp aide had overheard minor speaking with another student in the schoolyard during lunch. According to the aide, minor told the student that "they had just used an unknown substance in the bathroom." Based on that information, the security officer removed minor from his classroom and searched him. The security officer recovered from minor's left sock a small plastic bag containing a white substance resembling cocaine. The police officers booked minor, cited him to appear in court, and released him to his mother.
Because minor admitted the allegations of the petition, there is no testimony concerning the charge against him. The facts are taken from the probation report.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition under section 602 alleging that minor, then age 17, had possessed methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). Minor denied the allegations of the petition, but thereafter, at the "pre plea," admitted the possession charge. Based on that admission, the juvenile court found a factual basis for the admission, found that the allegation of the petition was true, and found that the minor was a person described in section 602. The juvenile court therefore sustained the petition and placed minor on 12 to 36 months probation pursuant to section 790.
Section 790 provides in pertinent part: "If the minor is found eligible for deferred entry of judgment, the prosecuting attorney shall file a declaration in writing with the court or state for the record the grounds upon which the determination is based, and shall make this information available to the minor and his or her attorney. Upon a finding that the minor is also suitable for deferred entry of judgment and would benefit from education, treatment, and rehabilitation efforts, the court may grant deferred entry of judgment. Under this procedure, the court may set the hearing for deferred entry of judgment at the initial appearance under Section 657. The court shall make findings on the record that a minor is appropriate for deferred entry of judgment pursuant to this article in any case where deferred entry of judgment is granted."
--------
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. We gave notice to minor that his appointed counsel had not found any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted us to consider. Minor did not file a supplemental brief.
We examined the entire record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. Based on that independent review, we have determined there are no arguable issues on appeal. We are therefore satisfied that minor's appointed counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court order sustaining the section 602 petition is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MOSK, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KRIEGLER, J.