Filed 6/13/13 In re Miguel S. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re Miguel S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. MIGUEL S., Defendant and Appellant. D062991
(Super. Ct. No. J231476)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sa n Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appoin tment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I. INTRODUCTION Miguel S. (Miguel) admitted committing one felony count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) 1 (count 2) and one misdemeanor co unt of resisting or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3). At a contested disposition hearing, the trial court committed Miguel to Camp Barrett for a peri od not to exceed 365 days. We affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND On March 7, 2012, Miguel willfully a nd unlawfully took a telephone from the victim without the victim's permission (count 2). Miguel attempted to run from an officer who was attempting to investigate the incide nt, which delayed the officer in completing his duties (count 3). On May 11, the People filed a petiti on contending that Miguel committed one felony count of robbery (§ 211) (count 1), one felony count of gran d theft (§ 487, subd. (c)) (count 2), one misdemeanor count of resi sting or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3), one misd emeanor count of petty theft (§ 484) (count 4), and one misdemeanor count of being intoxicated in a pu blic place (§ 647, subd. (f)) (count 5). All of the charges stemmed from the March 7 incident. On August 30, defense coun sel informed the court that Miguel was "prepared to accept the People's offer" and that he agreed to admit having committed counts 2 and 3,

1 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 in exchange for a dismissal of counts 1, 4, and 5, with Harvey 2 waivers. Defense counsel further stated that Miguel understood that his maximum time of confinement was three years four months. Miguel then admitted ha ving committed counts 2 and 3. The court sustained the counts as admitte d, and granted the People's motion to dismiss the balance of the counts. The probation officer filed a report r ecommending that Miguel be committed to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days. In his re port, the officer noted that Miguel had a drug problem, that he had str uggled with following dire ctions and had been argumentative with staff while in Juvenile Ha ll, and that he had performed poorly in school. The probation officer also noted th at he had reviewed a psychological evaluation of Miguel and had considered Miguel's age (18) and behavior at home and school in formulating a recommended disposition. At a contested disposition hearing, the tr ial court adopted the probation officer's recommendation and committed Miguel to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days. Miguel's appointed appellate c ounsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). After counsel filed a Wende brief, this court granted Miguel the opportunity to file a supplemen tal brief on his own behalf. Miguel has not filed a supplemental brief.

2 (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758.) "When the defendant enters a negotiated disposition, with counts dismissed subject to a Harvey waiver, the court can consider the dismissed counts for purpo ses of sentencing and restitution." ( People v. Hume (2011) 196 Cal. App.4th 990, 996.)4 III. DISCUSSION A review of the record discloses no error In his brief on appeal, Miguel's counsel pr esents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the reco rd for error, as mandated by Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), counsel lists as a possible, but not arguable, issu e: "Was it an abuse of disc retion for the judge to detain this appellant, who had no prio r juvenile record, remove him from the custody of his parents and commit him to Camp Barrett for 365 days?" A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders,

supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the po ssible issue listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Miguel has been compet ently represented by counsel on this appeal.
IV. DISPOSITION The disposition order is affirmed.

AARON, J. WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

McDONALD, J.