In re S.J. CA2/6

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 23, 2024
• Docket: B332915
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 10/23/24 In re S.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.J., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B332915 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. NJ30276) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

S.J. appeals the juvenile court’s order denying her motion to dismiss pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 782. She sought to dismiss three section 602 petitions: (1) one filed on February 4, 2020 for first degree burglary and grand theft; (2) one filed on March 9, 2020 for misdemeanor vandalism; and (3) one filed on June 14, 2021, amended on August 2, 2021, for first degree robbery and assault. The juvenile court granted the motion as to the first two petitions. It declined to dismiss the third, finding it was “not necessarily convinced that there’s been a passage of time nor that the minor has attained . . . rehabilitation” adequate to grant the motion. It commended appellant for completing the terms of probation, obtaining a job, and enrolling in college. It said “[t]hose factors along with the passage of time” might persuade the court to eventually dismiss the third petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 782. We appointed counsel to represent S.J. 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].) We advised S.J. on June 18, 2024 that she had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. No response has been received. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that S.J.’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.) DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s September 15, 2023 order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the amended petition dated August 2, 2021 is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P. J. BALTODANO, J.

2 John C. Larson, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________

Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.