In re Victor V.












Filed 4/28/17 In re Victor V. CA4/3











NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


In re VICTORV., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VICTOR V.,

Defendant and Appellant.



G053641

(Super. Ct. No. 16DL0860)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed.
Laurel Ellis Parker Simmons, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
We appointed counsel to represent Victor V. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. Counsel advised Victor of his right to ask the court to relieve present counsel and his right to file a supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of the filing of this brief to bring to the court’s attention any issues requiring review. Counsel offered to send Victor the entire record for the purpose of preparing a supplemental opening brief and informed Victor that she would be available to prepare a response if the court requests further briefing. That time has passed, and Victor has not filed any written argument.
Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and factsbut raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Victor did not raise any issues himself.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel raised one issue that might arguably support an appeal: did the court abuse its discretion in not staying the driving without a license allegation (Pen. Code, § 654)? We have reviewed the record under Wende and Anders,and considered the information counsel provided. We found no arguable issues on appeal and affirm the judgment.

FACTS
In February 2016 in Orange County,Victorwas involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage to other property. He unlawfully failed to stop and notify the person in charge of the property of his identifying and contact information. He also failed to notify thepolice department where the collision occurred.Victor did not have a valid driver license when he was involved in the accident.
A petition alleged two misdemeanor offenses: hit and run with property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)) (count 1); and driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)) (count 2). Victor admitted both offenses. The court declared Victor a non-ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725,and ordered several terms and conditions. The court determined the maximum sentence was eight months: six months on count one, and two months on count two. Victor’s counselargued that count 2 should be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, but the court declined, finding each count had aseparate intent. The court advised Victor that he could withdraw his admission at the next court date onNovember 28, 2016, assuming he had complied with the courts orders. Victor filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue raised by appellate counsel has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.







DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.




O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:



BEDSWORTH, J.



IKOLA, J.





Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com