Court Opinion

ID: 9907569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 18:03:00.128172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:59:59.730164
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/6/23 In re M.T. CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

In re M.T., a Person Coming                                   2d Juv. No. B328693
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                               (Super. Ct. No. NJ30428)
                                                              (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

     Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.T.,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      M.T. appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional
orders entered after he admitted an allegation that he was a
minor in possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 29610, subd. (a).)
      Three police officers drove their unmarked SUV into a Long
Beach alleyway. M.T. and another person were standing in the
middle of the alley blocking traffic. The officers activated the
SUV’s light and chirped its siren. When they exited the vehicle,
M.T. took off running, holding the front of his waistband. One
officer chased M.T. and found him crouched between two cars.
He detained M.T. and searched his person but found no weapons
or other contraband. Another officer found a handgun near one of
the cars M.T. had crouched beside.
       M.T. moved to suppress the handgun pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code section 700.1. After the juvenile court
denied the motion, M.T. admitted to possessing the gun. The
court placed him on informal probation for six months.
       We appointed counsel to represent M.T. in this appeal.
After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening brief that
raises no arguable issues. On October 2, 2023, we advised M.T.
by mail that he had 30 days within which to submit any
contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have not
received a response.
       We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
M.T.’s attorney fully complied with his responsibilities and that
no arguable issue exists. (In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th
97, 117-119; see People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The jurisdictional and dispositional orders, entered March
13, 2023, are affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                   BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.        YEGAN, J.

                               2
                   John C. Lawson II, Judge

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

                ______________________________

     Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.