IN RE: MARIAH H. (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

On August 16, 2009, at approximately 4:30 in the morning, two police officers on an undercover investigation noticed Mariah H. (then 17 years old) and two other females standing on a sidewalk near Sepulveda Boulevard and Archwood Street, an area known to have a high rate of prostitution.   Mariah was wearing a dress that was “very short, and very tight,” and appeared to be “tracking” cars.¹  When one of the officers drove to the curb near where Mariah was standing, and lowered his window, she approached his car, and asked, “Are you a cop?”   When he said, no, she turned around, bent over, and pulled up her skirt to show her bare buttocks, and said, “Touch me.”   The officer declined, and drove away.   A few minutes later, the second officer drove to the side of the street where Mariah was standing.   When she approached his car, he asked “if she was working.”   At that point, Mariah “looked around,” then pulled down the top portion of her dress to show her right breast, and asked him to touch her.   When the officer asked Mariah if she was a police officer, she answered no, and said that, “if she were a cop, she wouldn't be able to show [him] anything.”   Shortly thereafter, two other officers took Mariah into custody without incident.

On August 17, 2009, the People filed a juvenile petition alleging that Mariah had committed the crime of loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, a misdemeanor.  (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 602;  Pen.Code, § 653.22, subd. (a).)  The petition was tried to the juvenile court in September 2009;  the court found the allegation to be true.   On September 9, 2009, the court ordered Mariah placed in a short-term camp program, with predisposition credit of 23 days.

Mariah filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent her on appeal.   On December 10, 2009, Mariah's appointed counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues.   On December 11, 2009, we notified Mariah by letter that she could submit within 30 days any ground of appeal, argument or contention which she wished us to consider.   Mariah has not responded to our letter.

We have independently reviewed the record, and find that Mariah's appointed counsel has fulfilled his duty, and that there are no arguable issues regarding the validity of Mariah's juvenile proceeding.  (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436;  People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. According to one of the officers, “tracking” is “when an individual sees a vehicle and tracks the vehicle's movements, whether it's east to west or ․ goes to park.   And keeps strong eye contact with the vehicle, looking to see what direction it goes or whether it's going to stop or what the vehicle's possible intentions are, whether it stops or continues.”.  FN1. According to one of the officers, “tracking” is “when an individual sees a vehicle and tracks the vehicle's movements, whether it's east to west or ․ goes to park.   And keeps strong eye contact with the vehicle, looking to see what direction it goes or whether it's going to stop or what the vehicle's possible intentions are, whether it stops or continues.”

RUBIN, J. FLIER, J.