In re Alejandro J.
Filed 8/26/08 In re Alejandro J. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
In re ALEJANDRO J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B205786 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ14974) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO J., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Robert Ambrose and Judy Fridkis, Temporary Judges. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Bruce G. Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_____________________________
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition[1]alleged then 16-year-old Alejandro J. had committed felony possession of a deadly weapon (a billy club), (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(1)) (count 1) and misdemeanor evasion of paying railroad fare (Pen. Code, 587c) (count 2).
Alejandro J. denied the allegations and filed a motion to suppress evidence ( 700.1). According to the hearing evidence, Alejandro J. was found to be riding the public transit system without having purchased a ticket. The fare inspector detained him on the platform to issue him a citation. Alejandro J. became belligerent and combative. He contested the citation and initially resisted being handcuffed by the fare inspector. When asked, before being handcuffed, if he possessed any weapons, Alejandro J. said he had a hammer for protection, which the fare inspector removed from his waistband.
The juvenile court denied the suppression motion. At the conclusion of the disposition hearing, the court sustained the petition and declared count 1 to be a misdemeanor and count 2 to be an infraction. Without declaring Alejandro J. to be a ward of the court, the court placed him on probation for six months pursuant to section 725, subdivision (a).
A probation officers report prepared five months later showed Alejandro J. had poor school attendance, and had failed to participate in court-ordered counseling or community service. As a result, the juvenile court terminated Alejandro J.s section 725, subdivision (a) probation, ordered and adjudged him a ward of the court pursuant to section 602, and ordered him home on probation.
We appointed counsel to represent Alejandro J. on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On June 3, 2008, we advised Alejandro J. he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Alejandro J.s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order under review is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WOODS, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P.J.
ZELON, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
