P. v. Albert F.
Filed 5/10/07 P. v. Albert F. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT F., Defendant and Appellant. | B192169 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ30796) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steff Padilla, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Dee A. Hayashi, Staff Attorney, and California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Albert F. appeals from an order adjudging him a ward of the court.
The court originally sustained a petition filed May 19, 2005 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) alleging that he possessed a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). The court ordered deferred entry of judgment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 790.
A second Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed November 28, 2005, alleging that appellant committed misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, 595, subd. (a)). On June 2, 2006, appellant admitted the vandalism allegation; the court revoked the deferred entry of judgment order, and ordered appellant home on probation.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging the juvenile court's ruling on appellant's motion to suppress which had been denied on September 28, 2005 in connection with the first petition. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgment that they had been unable to find any arguable issues. We have received no response to our letter to appellant advising him that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants appellate attorneys have fully complied with their responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG, Acting P.J.
We concur:
MOSK, J. KRIEGLER, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
