In re Daniel C. CA4/3

Filed 7/30/14 In re Daniel C. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049681

v. (Super. Ct. No. DL035730)

DANIEL C., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed. David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Daniel C. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court counsel found no issues to argue on his behalf. Daniel was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and he has not filed a brief. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When specific issues are raised by the appellant himself in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Daniel did not file a supplemental brief raising any issues. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel questioned whether there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding Daniel violated the terms of his probation and whether the allegation that Daniel possessed a handgun “on or about September 1, 2013,” gave Daniel adequate notice for due process purposes. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 19, 2009, a petition was filed alleging that on December 17, 1 2008, then 14-year-old Daniel violated Penal Code section 415, subdivision (1), by disturbing the peace, a misdemeanor. On November 9, 2009, the court placed Daniel on 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.