In re N.E. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal

In re N.E. CA2/6

DecidedSeptember 3, 2024

DocketB332881

StatusUnpublished

This text of In re N.E. CA2/6 (In re N.E. CA2/6) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re N.E. CA2/6, (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

Filed 9/3/24 In re N.E. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 N.E., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B332881 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. SJ0304A) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

N.E. appeals from a dispositional order after the juvenile court found true allegations that he committed second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and felony vandalism (id., § 594, subd. (a).) Appellant vandalized elementary school classrooms by splattering paint throughout them, including on desks, chairs, and class materials. The court declared appellant a ward of the court and ordered him committed to the custody of probation for placement at Dorothy Kirby Center, under terms and conditions. We appointed counsel to represent appellant. Counsel examined the record and filed an opening brief requesting the court review this case independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (See In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [Wende procedure applies in juvenile delinquency appeals].) On May 7, 2024, we advised appellant by mail that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. We have received no response from appellant. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) The juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

BALTODANO, J.

2 Susan Ser, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________

Elana Goldstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Filed 9/3/24 In re N.E. 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 N.E., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B332881 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. SJ0304A) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

N.E. appeals from a dispositional order after the juvenile court found true allegations that he committed second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and felony vandalism (id., § 594, subd. (a).) Appellant vandalized elementary school classrooms by splattering paint throughout them, including on desks, chairs, and class materials. The court declared appellant a ward of the court and ordered him committed to the custody of probation for placement at Dorothy Kirby Center, under terms and conditions. We appointed counsel to represent appellant. Counsel examined the record and filed an opening brief requesting the court review this case independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (See In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [Wende procedure applies in juvenile delinquency appeals].) On May 7, 2024, we advised appellant by mail that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. We have received no response from appellant. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) The juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

BALTODANO, J.

2 Susan Ser, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________

Elana Goldstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re N.E. CA2/6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ne-ca26-calctapp-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack