In re Alexander N.
Filed 10/24/06 In re Alexander N. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re ALEXANDER N., a person coming under Juvenile Court Law, ____________________________________ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEXANDER N., Defendant and Appellant. | H030084 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV28827) |
After a contested jurisdictional hearing on March 8, 2006, the court found two counts arising from a July 30, 2005 incident to be true: possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code § 11377, subd. (a), a fel.) and possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code § 11357, subd. (b) (28.5 grams or less), a misd.). The court also terminated the minor’s Deferred Entry of Judgment program and entered judgment based on the minor’s admission on March 2, 2005, of six counts arising from incidents occurring on March 12, 2004, and May 26, 2004, on a high school campus: two counts of possession of a weapon on school grounds (Pen. Code § 626.10 subd. (a)); possession of a controlled substance (MDMA) (Health & Saf. Code § 11378); possession for sale of a controlled substance (marijuana) (Health & Saf. Code § 11359); purchasing, receiving, or possessing tobacco while under 18 years of age (Pen. Code § 308, subd. (b)); failing to leave school grounds, or reentering as a non-student without permission (Pen. Code § 626.7).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We have notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. The period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
__________________________________________
McAdams, J.
WE CONCUR:
________________________________
Mihara, Acting P.J.
________________________________
Duffy, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
