Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County No. JJD059967, Hugo Loza, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Michael E. Mitchell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
On February 1, 2007, Tulare Police Officer Rose Denny responded to a call of a fight in progress at Tulare Western High School and stopped at an alley where she saw approximately 10 males, including appellant, Jose G. As Denny asked one of the males why they were in the alley, Jose began backing away from her. Denny asked Jose where he was going? She told him she was going to pat him down for weapons and asked if he was carrying anything. Jose replied that he had a “blade” in his pocket. Denny retrieved a hunting knife and a box cutter from Jose’s right front pants’ pocket.
In a post-arrest statement, Jose told Officer Denny he found the knife and that he had the box cutter in his possession because earlier he was cutting cardboard for a fire. Jose also told her he was on probation.
On February 2, 2007, the district attorney filed a petition charging Jose with two counts of possessing a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(4)).
On March 26, 2007, Jose’s defense counsel filed a motion to suppress.
Following a hearing on September 4, 2007, the court denied the motion.
On September 18, 2007, Jose admitted one count of possessing a concealed dirk or dagger in exchange for the dismissal of the second count, a grant of probation, and the dismissal of the case after six months if Jose complied with his terms of probation.
On October 16, 2007, the court continued Jose on probation for six months.
Jose’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Jose has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.