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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 San Diego County, Polly H. 

Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment 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 count 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 period not to exceed 365 days. We affirm. 

II. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On March 7, 2012, Miguel willfully and 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 incident, which delayed the officer in completing 

his duties (count 3). 

On May 11, the People filed a petition contending that Miguel committed one 

felony count of robbery (§ 211) (count 1), one felony count of grand theft (§ 487, subd. 

(c)) (count 2), one misdemeanor count of resisting or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, 

subd. (a)(1)) (count 3), one misdemeanor count of petty theft (§ 484) (count 4), and one 

misdemeanor count of being intoxicated in a public place (§ 647, subd. (f)) (count 5). All 

of the charges stemmed from the March 7 incident. 

On August 30, defense counsel 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 Harvey2 waivers. Defense counsel 

further stated that Miguel understood that his maximum time of confinement was three 

years four months. Miguel then admitted having committed counts 2 and 3. The court 

sustained the counts as admitted, and granted the People's motion to dismiss the balance 

of the counts. 

The probation officer filed a report recommending that Miguel be committed to 

Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days. In his report, the officer noted that 

Miguel had a drug problem, that he had struggled with following directions and had been 

argumentative with staff while in Juvenile Hall, and that he had performed poorly in 

school. The probation officer also noted that 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 trial 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 counsel 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 supplemental 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 purposes 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 presents no argument for reversal, but asks 

this court to review the record 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, issue: "Was it an abuse of discretion for the judge to detain 

this appellant, who had no prior 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 possible issue listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed 

no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Miguel has been competently represented by 

counsel on this appeal. 

IV. 

DISPOSITION 

 The disposition order is affirmed. 

 

AARON, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

 McCONNELL, P. J. 

 McDONALD, J.