In re H.G. CA4/3

Filed 1/15/16 In re H.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051811

v. (Super. Ct. No. DL041910)

H.G., OPINION

Minor and Appellant.

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

We appointed counsel to represent H.G. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. We gave H.G. 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and he did not file a brief. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 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 the appellant himself raises specific issues 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, 120, 124.) Here, H.G. did not file a supplemental brief raising any issues. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised two issues: whether the trial court properly denied H.G.’s motion to suppress, and whether the court abused its discretion in permitting petitioner to amend the petition on the day of the hearing. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and considered the information counsel provided. We found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. FACTS Anaheim Police Officer Jamie Pietras was conducting “high impact enforcement” in a known gang neighborhood. Prior to starting his shift that day, Pietras was briefed regarding a parolee at large named Juan Gonzalez. As part of this briefing, Pietras viewed a photograph of Gonzalez. While on patrol Pietras heard a radio call from an undercover investigator advising Gonzalez was seen inside a dark gray Honda Civic. Pietras conducted a traffic stop of this vehicle to contact Gonzalez. Pietras observed a total of five occupants in the vehicle. He saw Gonzalez seated in the right rear passenger