In re E.M.
Defendant E.M. timely appeals from the juvenile courts March 13, 2007 order declaring him a ward of the court, sentencing him to an out-of-home placement, and setting the maximum term of confinement at six years. Defendants appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and has identified an issue in the record that might arguably support the appeal. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744.) Counsel describes the issue as follows: Did the juvenile court err by denying [defendants] suppression motion because the only facts supporting probable cause to arrest [defendant] were the statements of his co-participants who were themselves the focus of pending criminal charges or investigations [and thus their statements are] inherently suspect? (People v. Duarte (2001) 24 Cal.4th 603, 617 . . . ; see also People v. Schulle (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 809, 814, 815; People v. Kurland (1980) 28 Cal.3d 376, 393.) Or, under the circumstances, did the co-participants statements provide sufficient probable cause because they corroborated each other? (People v. Green (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 199, 205 . . . [[C]orroboration of an unreliable informants statements may be met by those of another, if they were interviewed independently, at a different time and place.]; see also People v. Fein (1971) 4 Cal.3d 747, 753, disapproved on other grounds by People v. Palaschak (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1236, 1241.) After reviewing the entire record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendants motion to suppress and that there is no issue warranting further briefing. The March 13, 2007 order is affirmed.
Comments on In re E.M.