In re S.G.

Full title: In re S.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

Date published: Mar 18, 2014

B249934 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2014)

Opinion

B249934

03-18-2014

In re S.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.G., Defendant and Appellant.

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

SEGAL

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. VJ43397)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip K. Mautino, Judge. Affirmed.

Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Campus security detained S.G., then 15 years old, after he had helped several other youths throw a chair against the window of a middle school classroom. The chair did not damage the window.

The People filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that S.G. had committed attempted vandalism (Pen. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a), 664), a misdemeanor. S.G. denied the allegation.

At the conclusion of the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found the allegation true and sustained the petition. The court declared S.G. a ward of the court and ordered him home on probation.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent S.G. on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On November 13, 2013 we advised S.G. that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response.

We have examined the record and are satisfied that S.G.'s attorney on appeal has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and there are no arguable issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

SEGAL. J.^* We concur:

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

WOODS, Acting P. J.

ZELON, J.