Filed 6/8/17 In re E.G. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



In re E.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067465

(Super.Ct.No. RIJ1600397)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Roger A. Luebs, Judge. Affirmed.
Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Then 12-year-old defendant and appellant E.G. (minor) possessed 0.2 grams of marijuana on school grounds. Minor was subsequently placed on informal probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2. After minor successfully completed informal probation, the juvenile court dismissed the petition and sealed minor’s juvenile court records in accordance with section 786. The juvenile court, however, denied minor’s request to seal his school records. Minor appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 19, 2015, minor was found to be in possession of 0.2 grams of marijuana while at school.
On May 10, 2016, a petition was filed charging minor with misdemeanor possession of marijuana on school grounds in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (e).
On June 15, 2016, the juvenile court placed minor on informal probation pursuant to section 654.2 and ordered a progress report in six months.
On December 2, 2016, the probation officer filed minor’s progress report. The probation officer reported that minor had earned six A’s and one B, completed 20 hours of community service, written a satisfactory two-page essay, and “substantially complied with the reasonable orders of probation supervision which were within his capacity to perform.” The probation officer recommended that the petition be dismissed and the “child’s juvenile record related to the dismissed petition[] [be] ordered sealed pursuant to 786 WIC.”
Minor’s progress hearing was held on December 7, 2016. At that time, minor’s counsel requested that the offense be declared an infraction and that minor’s school records, as well as any records held by law enforcement agencies, be sealed. Minor’s counsel argued, “Defense would also ask that the Moreno Valley School District records on behalf of the minor related to this case be sealed. He is 13. He has been clean for over six months. He’s tested clean. [¶] I think that the harm of those records would outweigh his rehabilitation and re-entry and not to have this follow him essentially through college, possibly through a military career.”
The juvenile court denied the request to seal minor’s school records stating: “As to the issue of sealing, I would be inclined to exercise my discretion because I don’t believe sealing of school records while a child is still in school is helpful to his rehabilitation. So I am inclined to do that [and not seal the school records]. [¶] But I will seal the law enforcement records and court records and probation records . . . .” The court reduced the offense to an infraction and then dismissed the petition. The arrest records and court records were then ordered sealed in accordance with section 786.
On December 29, 2016, minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
III
DISCUSSION
After minor appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:



RAMIREZ
P. J.



SLOUGH
J.