In re Marvin R.

Filed 2/22/07  In re Marvin R. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  Ronald M. Christianson, Judge.  Affirmed with directions.

            Richard De La Sota, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The juvenile court found true that minor and appellant Marvin R. (minor) violated Health and Safety Code sections 11351.5 (possession of cocaine base for purpose of sale) and 11350, subdivision (a) (possession of cocaine).  On appeal, minor contends that:  (1) the true findings are not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the juvenile court failed to determine his maximum term of confinement under Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (c).  For the reasons set forth below, we remand this case to the juvenile court to determine minor's maximum term of confinement.  In all other respects, the disposition of the juvenile court is affirmed. 

I.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A.  Procedural Background

            1.  First Petition

            On November 30, 2004, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, charging minor with possessing cocaine base for sale under Health and Safety Code section 11351.5 and possessing a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a).

            On December 1, 2004, minor admitted that he possessed a controlled substance, and the court made a true finding with respect to the charge.  The charge of possessing cocaine base for sale was dismissed.  Two weeks later, the court declared minor a ward of the court and placed him in his parents' custody on probation.

            2.  Probation Violation

            On August 18, 2005, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, subdivision (a)(2) petition was filed.  It alleged that minor violated his probation by failing to appear for drug testing and violating curfew.

            On August 22, 2005, minor admitted violating curfew and the court found the allegation true.  The allegation of failing to appear for drug testing was dismissed.  The same day, the court continued minor's status as a ward of the court in his guardian's custody, and ordered 15 days of confinement under the previously imposed probation conditions.

            3.  Current Petition

            On April 25, 2006, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed.  It charged minor with possessing cocaine base for sale under Health and Safety Code section 11351.5 and possessing a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a).  On May 16, 2006, the juvenile court found both charges to be true.

            On June 14, 2006, the court continued minor as a ward of the court and placed him in the probation department's custody pending placement in a suitable foster care facility.  The court placed minor under the previously imposed probation conditions.  Minor appeals.

B.  Factual Background

            On April 22, 2006, a San Bernardino Police Department narcotics team conducted a surveillance of 1157 North Lugo Avenue, an apartment complex in the center of a high narcotics trafficking area.  Earlier that day, officers arrested a person in possession of cocaine, which lead them to the North Lugo address.

            Officer Chris Gray, a member of the narcotics team, watched a group of five or six individuals, one of whom was minor, barbecuing in front of the property.  Over the course of 30 minutes, Officer Gray observed three or four unidentified individuals arrive and approach the group at separate times, either on foot or driving up in a vehicle and stopping.  Officer Gray heard one of the individuals at the location say, â€