In re I.G.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/10/13  In re I.G. CA2/5

> 

> 

> 

> 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE

 

 
>

In re I.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B248045       (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. TJ19916)
THE PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   I.G.,               Defendant and Appellant.

 

            APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Tamara E. Hall, Judge. 
Affirmed.

            Bruce G.
Finebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

            No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

 

 

The minor, I.G., appeals
from the March 27, 2013 dispositional order.  We affirm the order.

On April 5, 2012, the Los Angeles County
District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition
against the minor, then age 14.  The
misdemeanor petition alleged the minor possessed marijuana on school grounds in
violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (e).  On August 22,
2012,
the juvenile court released the minor to his mother and placed him on informal
probation for six months.    On February 25, 2013, the juvenile court revoked the informal probation
because of the minor’s failure to comply with the probation conditions.  On March 27,
2013,
an adjudication hearing was held on the petition.  The juvenile court heard testimony from:  Dominquez High School security officer Anthony
Martin; school police officer Mariano Venegas; and senior criminalist Nathan
Lind from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s crime laboratory.  The testimony indicated:  the minor possessed marijuana; the minor
asked not to be arrested and for “one more chance”; and he admitted possessing
the marijuana.  After the prosecution
rested, the minor moved to dismiss the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 701.1.  The motion was denied.  The juvenile court sustained the petition,
finding the allegations true beyond a reasonable doubt.  The court declared the minor to be a ward of
the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.  The minor was placed home on probation and
ordered to comply with all probation conditions.  The minor filed his notice of appeal on April 3, 2013.            

We appointed counsel
to represent the minor on appeal. 
After examination of the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an
“Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. 
Instead, appointed appellate counsel requested this court to
independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to >People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441.  (See (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284.)  On July 22, 2013, we advised the minor that
he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments
he wishes us to consider.  No response
has been received.  We have examined the
entire record and are satisfied appointed appellate counsel has fully complied
with his responsibilities.  No argument
exists favorable to the minor on appeal. 
(People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) 

The order under review is affirmed.                 

                                                NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

 

                                                TURNER,
P. J.

 

We concur:

 

 

            MOSK,
J.                                                                  

 

 

KUMAR, J.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">*