In re Wesley M.
Filed 6/25/07 In re Wesley M. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re WESLEY M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WESLEY M., Defendant and Appellant. | A115594 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J06-01112) |
Defendant Wesley M. appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional order after he pleaded no contest to petty theft and possession of marijuana. Defendants counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel advised her client of his right to file a supplemental brief and none has been filed. We have reviewed the record and find that there are no meritorious issues to be briefed or argued.
Background
Sixteen-year-old Wesley M. was arrested for petty theft on June 2, 2006 because he was caught taking two bottles of liquor from a store. On June 19, 2006, police officers observed defendant in a housing project loitering and passing something to a passing car. An officer searched defendant and found a small amount of marijuana.
The Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, as amended, contained five counts including possession of cocaine base on July 2, 2006, and entering a dwelling house without the consent of the owner on June 19, 2006. After defendant was advised of his rights and the consequences of his plea, he waived his rights and pleaded no contest to count one, violation of Penal Code section 484/488, petty theft, and count four, violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (b), possession of marijuana, 28.5 grams or less. All other counts were dismissed. The court set the maximum period of confinement at six months, placed defendant on probation with 30 additional days of home supervision, gave appropriate credits, and imposed standard conditions of probation including drug testing and a delay in driving privileges.
Discussion
Competent counsel represented defendant at all stages of the proceedings. Defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his rights and entered a no contest plea. There was no error in the disposition. Although the court mistakenly referenced Vehicle Code section 13202 for imposing the delay in driving privileges, Vehicle Code section 13202.5 authorizes a delay in driving privileges for a person under 21 years old found to be in possession of a controlled substance as defendant was.
The order is affirmed.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Swager, J.
______________________
Margulies, J.
