In re Edgar C.
Filed 9/6/07 In re Edgar C. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re EDGAR C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDGAR C., Defendant and Appellant. | D050065 (Super. Ct. No. J201869) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers and Joe O. Littlejohn, Judges. Affirmed.
Fourteen-year-old Edgar C. entered a negotiated admission to vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subds. (a) & (b)(2)(A)), a misdemeanor. The juvenile court declared Edgar a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602), and placed him on probation conditioned on, among other things, that he spend a period not to exceed 150 days at the Breaking Cycles program. Edgar appeals. We affirm.
FACTS
On July 6, 2006, Edgar, then 14 years old, accompanied by two friends, applied graffiti with a white shot polish applicator to a wall belonging to a real estate business. Barking dogs alerted a neighbor, who called the police. Edgar was arrested shortly thereafter. The cost to cover up the graffiti was $120.00. Edgar admitted the vandalism, and the court dismissed a second count of possession of a marking substance with intent to commit vandalism.
The probation officer reported that Edgar's mother said that her son was using drugs and alcohol, was sometimes truant from school, was not doing his homework, was coming home late and treating her badly. Edgar admitted to drinking and using marijuana on a regular basis. The probation officer recommended Edgar be committed to the Breaking Cycles program for a period not to exceed 150 days. The probation officer noted that on October 26, 2006, while this instant case was pending, the custodian at Roosevelt Middle School witnessed Edgar applying graffiti to a wall outside of the girl's locker room.
At the disposition hearing on December 22, 2006, the court followed the probation officer's recommendation and committed Edgar to the Breaking Cycles program.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the juvenile court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible, but not arguable issue: Whether the disposition was reasonable, that is " 'fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.' (Welf. & Inst. Code, 725, 730; [citations].)"
We granted Edgar permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issue referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Edgar on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
