In re Michael V

Filed 3/9/06 In re Michael V. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

While on probation in another matter, a subsequent petition filed April 13, 2004, alleged that minor, Michael V., possessed cocaine (count one) and possessed a knife with a locking blade on school grounds (count two). On May 6, 2004, the court denied the minor's motion to suppress the evidence. An amended subsequent petition filed June 17, 2004, added an allegation that the minor committed a first degree burglary (count three). The minor admitted count one and, as an offense reasonably related to count three, grand theft, with the understanding that count two would be dismissed. The court declared the minor a ward of the court and continued probation subject to certain terms and conditions including various fines and fees.

The minor appeals, contending the court: (1) erroneously denied the suppression motion, (2) failed to inquire of the minor whether he understood the factual basis for his admission and failed to find a factual basis for the allegations, (3) failed to declare whether grand theft was a felony or a misdemeanor, (4) erroneously computed the maximum term of confinement, and (5) erroneously imposed a restitution fine on each count. We affirm.

FACTS

An officer saw the minor and two other juveniles walking through a closed school campus. They told the officer they were coming from the rear of the school. The minor had both hands in the front pocket of his sweatshirt and was patted down for weapons. The officer found a medium-sized hard object in the pocket. It was a nylon zippered pouch containing a glass pipe and a baggie with two pieces of a substance which tested positive for cocaine. The minor admitted the substance was cocaine. The officer also found a knife with a two and three-quarter-inch locking blade in the minor's pocket.

On another occasion, the minor took a Sony PlayStation videogame system from the house of a friend.

DISCUSSION

I

The minor contends that the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the evidence of the cocaine, knife and statements because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. We disagree.

Background

At the hearing on the minor's suppression motion, the prosecutor called no witnesses to testify to justify the warrantless search. The parties stipulated that the minor was on searchable probation.^[1] Citing In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68 (Tyrell), the prosecutor argued the minor was lawfully searched even though the officer was unaware at the time that the minor was on searchable probation. Defense counsel argued that several subsequent cases have â€