In re Carlos A.
Filed 5/30/06 In re Carlos A. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re CARLOS A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS A., Minor and Appellant. | D047662 (Super. Ct. No. J204576) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.
In September 2005 Carlos A. was involved in a physical altercation with another student at Pine Hills High School in Santa Clara County. Carlos hit the other student several times in the face inflicting a bloody nose. Carlos was cited to appear in the Santa Clara County juvenile court. At the time, Carlos was a ward of San Diego County living in a group placement in Santa Clara County. On October 11, 2005, the Santa Clara County juvenile court held a jurisdictional hearing, entered a true finding Carlos had committed battery (Pen. Code, § 242), and transferred the case to San Diego County for disposition. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared Carlos a continuing ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), placed him on probation and committed him to Breaking Cycles for a maximum 240 days.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue whether the trial court erred in committing Carlos to Breaking Cycles for a maximum 240 days when the maximum term for battery is 180 days.
We granted Carlos permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issue referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Carlos on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
BENKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Attorneys.
