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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

v.

H.G.,

Minor and Appellant. G051811

(Super. Ct. No. DL041910)

O P I N I O N

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.2 We appointed counsel to represent H.G. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief

that se t forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised

the court she found no issues to argue on h is beh alf. We gave H.G. 30 days to file written argument on h is 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 explai ned a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific iss ues. 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 opin ion 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 ) , t o 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 d enied H.G.’s moti on to suppress, and whether the court abused its discretion in permitting petitioner to amend the petition on the day of the hear ing

.

W e have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under

Wende and Anders, and conside red the information co unsel 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 brief ed regarding a parolee at large named Juan Gonzalez. As part of this briefing,

Pietras v iewed a photograph of Gonzalez. While on patrol Pietras heard a radio call from

an un dercover investigator advising Gonzalez was seen ins ide a dark gray Honda Civic.

Pietras conducted a traffi c 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 pass enger3

seat. Pietras also saw H.G. sitting in the back seat. Prior to stopping the vehicle, Pietras observed the males in the back seat moving back and forth inside the vehicle. Pietras was concerned for his safety

.

As a result of the traffic stop and in an attempt to safely detain Gonzalez, all occupants w ere ordered to get out of the vehicle. T hey were handcuffed, and told they were being detained. Gonzalez was the first person ordered out of the vehicle followed by H.G. Pietras estimated four to five minutes passed from the time of the traffic stop to

the time H.G. got out of the vehicle. After H.G. got out of the vehicle, another officer questioned him

. Pietras estimated H.G. w as detained for a total of 10 minutes as a result of the traffic stop.

Anaheim Police Officer Onam Urena assisted Pietras in de taining the

occupan ts of the vehicle

. Urena was the third police unit to arrive on scene and was in full police uniform. Urena assisted by handcuffing the occupants of the vehicle after another officer ordered them out one by one. After H.G. was handcuf fed, Urena asked

him his name and date of birth. H.G. responded his na me was “Brian Ramirez” and his date of birth was “July 30 [
, ] 1997.”

Another officer checked the name provided by H.G. After the name check, that officer requested a dev ice be brought to the location to confirm H.G.’s identity by his fingerprints. After H.G. ’s fingerprints were scanned, Urena asked him why he lied about

his name. H.G. responded, “[I] t worked before. I haven’t got caught using a fake name.”

A petition alleged H.G. made a false representation to a peace officer, Sergeant Triplett, in violation of Penal Code section 148.9, subdivision (a)

. T he juvenile
court heard a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code

section 70 0.1 in conjunction with a contested dispositional hearing

.

For purposes of the mo tion to suppress evidence, the parties stipulated the re
was no warrant for H.G. on the night in question. However, there was an active warrant

for Gonzalez. At the co nclu sion of Ur ena’s testimony, the prosecutor requested4

permission to amend the petition to strike Sergeant Triplett’s name from the petition and

substitute Offic er Urena. At the prosecutor ’s request , the court took judicial notice of the identifying informat ion contained in prior petitions filed against H.G. The court denied

H.G.’s motion to suppress and sustained the allegation in the petition. At the

d ispositional hearing, H.G. was adjudged a ward of the court . H.G. w as continued on probation under the s ame terms and c onditions and ordere d to spend 90 days in custody.

H.G. filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

A r eview of the record pursuant to Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, and
Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue s raised by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

RYLAARSDAM, J.

BEDSWORTH, J.