In re David S.
Filed 3/28/07 In re David S. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re DAVID S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B192652 |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID S., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ13045) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, S. Robert Ambrose, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Patricia A. Andreoni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David S. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on a finding that he sold or transported marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a), a felony. He was placed home on probation with his mother and grandfather.
The evidence at the adjudication hearing established that on January 6, 2006, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Los Angeles Police Officer Mario Cardona and his partner were on patrol in the area of 80th Street and Avalon Boulevard in Los Angeles when they observed appellant and other juveniles walking. Appellant was wearing a backpack, and when the patrol vehicle slowed, appellant and one of the other individuals ran. The officers got out of the vehicle and chased appellant. During the chase, Officer Cardona saw appellant make a motion, like in a dunking a basketball motion over a tall fence and could hear [something] going through the branches over the fence. The officers took custody of appellant and retrieved the backpack which contained marijuana plants. It was stipulated that the plant material recovered was 247 grams of marijuana. It was Officer Cardonas opinion that the marijuana was possessed for purposes of sale.[1]
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On December 15, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
WILLHITE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
[1] Previously, appellant admitted the allegations of a petition filed June 28, 2005, that he committed grand theft person in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (c). Entry of judgment had been deferred pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 790.
