In re J.L.

Filed 1/22/07  In re J.L. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

            Defendant J.L., a minor, pleaded no contest to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (b), possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor.  She appeals from a dispositional order that in part ordered formal probation.  The court ordered that she not be made a ward of the court and placed her on probation in her mother's home for six months.  Defendant's timely notice of appeal asserted error in placing her on probation under the circumstances of this case.

            Defendant's counsel filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.  Defendant was notified of her right to file a supplemental brief and has not submitted anything.  We have reviewed the record on appeal and find there are no meritorious issues to be briefed.

Factual Background and Proceedings

            The15-year-old defendant was arrested at her high school after marijuana and alcohol were found in her backpack.  The petition alleged a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (e), possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana upon the grounds of a school open for classes.  At the dispositional hearing, the petition was amended to allege only a violation or Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (b).  After defendant was advised of her rights and knowingly and voluntarily waived them, she pleaded no contest to the charge.  The juvenile court judge carefully considered the probation report, input of counsel, and was aware of the complex family problems that contributed to the offense when he made the dispositional orders.

Discussion

            Competent counsel represented defendant at all stages of the proceedings.  There were no errors in the dispositional orders.  Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a) and the circumstances of this case, the court properly placed defendant on probation.

            The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                                    ______________________

                                                                                      Marchiano, P.J.

We concur:

______________________

  Stein, J.

______________________

  Swager, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.