In re Jonathan M.
Filed 9/11/07 In re Jonathan M. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
In re JONATHAN M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B194815 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ37150) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONATHAN M., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cynthia Loo, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Judith Vitek, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
In August 2005, police officers responded to a call about a fight to find 16-year-old Jonathan M. and some other young men near the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue. Witnesses (including Jonathans 15-year-old girlfriend, Angela W.) told the officers about the fight. Jonathan was arrested, and Angela was taken to the police station, where the police found more than 30 individually wrapped pieces of rock cocaine in her pockets. Jonathan waived his rights and told the officers that he was a member of the Harlem 30 Crips gang, that he had gone to Hollywood to sell rocks and that, when he became involved in the fight, he dropped them. Angela picked them up.
Jonathan was cited for possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and released, and in October a petition was filed alleging the same offense plus an allegation that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602; Pen. Code, 186.22.) A second petition was filed in July 2006, alleging that Jonathan had committed a residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) The first petition was deemed refiled at the same time the second petition was filed.
In August 2006, Jonathan admitted the burglary allegation, and the juvenile court then transferred the second petition to the court where the first petition was pending. In October, the juvenile court found the allegations of the first petition were true, placed Jonathan in a camp program, and set his maximum term of confinement at 11 years, 4 months.
In March 2007, the juvenile court granted Jonathans request for early release and placed him at home on probation based on reports that he was doing quite well in his camp program. At the same hearing, the court reconsidered its gang enhancement finding and dismissed it on the ground that it was not supported by sufficient evidence (and reduced Jonathans maximum term of confinement to 7 years, 4 months).
Jonathan filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed appellate counsel to represent him. On July 11, 2007, Jonathans lawyer filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On the same day, we notified Jonathan that he had 30 days within which to submit any issues he wanted us to consider. He has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record and are satisfied that Jonathans lawyer has fulfilled her duty and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
VOGEL, J.
We concur:
MALLANO, Acting P.J. JACKSON, J.*
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
______________________________________________________________________________
*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
