In re Natalie S. CA5

Filed 4/15/16 In re Natalie S. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re NATALIE S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F072476

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 15CEJ600404-1 & 15CEJ600404-1A) v.

NATALIE S., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gregory T. Fain, Judge. Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 119, which extended Wende review to a minor’s first appeal in a delinquency case. Having reviewed the record as required by those opinions, we affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 17, 2015, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office filed a wardship petition under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, alleging that Natalie S. was under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a); count 1) and gave false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a); count 2).1 On July 21, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office filed a second wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging Natalie unlawfully possessed acetaminophen and hydrocodone bitartrate, a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). On July 22, a plea agreement was reached. Natalie waived her constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. (See In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 315, 320-321, abrogated on another ground by People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1174-1178, as stated in People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 360-361.) The court advised her of the consequences of admitting the allegations, including that the maximum possible period of confinement was one year four months. Natalie then admitted count 1 of the first petition and the allegation contained in the second petition. For purposes of a factual basis (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.778(f)(6); see Pen. Code, § 1192.5), she stated, with respect to the first petition, that she was “high on meth,” and, as to the second petition, that she had a bottle full of prescription pills in her bag that were not prescribed to her. In light of the plea, count 2