Opinion
D076366
01-16-2020
In re KEVIN S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN S., Defendant and Appellant.
Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JCM242204) APPEAL from a Judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed. Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations that Kevin S. (the Minor) transported heroin (Health and Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 1) and possessed heroin for sale (§ 11351; count 2).
All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.
At the disposition hearing, the court placed the Minor on home supervision with various terms and conditions. Defense counsel agreed with the recommended disposition.
The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not be able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On March 8, 2019, the Minor was driving without a license. He was stopped by police for a traffic violation. A search of the car produced a backpack containing 133.32 grams of black tar heroin.
The Minor's defense was the backpack belonged to one of the other persons in the car at the time.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks this court to review the record as required by Wende. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
1. Whether there was substantial evidence the minor intended that the heroin would be sold;
2. Whether there was substantial evidence that the Minor possessed the heroin; and
3. Whether the phrase "mind altering substance" in the probation condition forbidding the possession of controlled substances and alcohol is constitutionally vague.
This probation condition was among those that defense counsel approved and recommended. --------
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: AARON, J. IRION, J.