In re Charlotte A.

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLOTTE A., Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

Date published: Dec 27, 2007

No. B197034 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2007)

Opinion

In re CHARLOTTE A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLOTTE A., Defendant and Appellant. B197034 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Second Division December 27, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KJ27167

THE COURT:^*

Charlotte A. appeals from the order declaring her a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 601)¹ by reason of her being a habitual truant in that she was absent from school or tardy for over 100 days from September 27, 2004 through January 19, 2005, during sixth and seventh grade. On July 26, 2005, a petition was filed pursuant to section 601, alleging in count 1 that appellant was a habitual truant; count 2, that following a referral for appellant and her parents to the school attendance review board, appellant failed to obey directives of school authorities and the board; and count 3, that appellant and her parents participated in a mediation program of the District Attorney’s office, but failed to respond to the directions of the office. On January 9, 2006, appellant was placed on formal probation, which was revoked on July 10, 2006. On February 6, 2007, at the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court dismissed counts 2 and 3 for failure of proof, and granted the People’s motion to amend the petition to strike six dates of truancy alleged in count 1. The juvenile court found count 1 of the petition true beyond a reasonable doubt. The juvenile court sustained the petition and declared appellant a ward of the court. Appellant was ordered home on probation.

1 All subsequent code section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

We appointed counsel to represent her on this appeal.

After examination of the record, counsel filed a “Statement by Counsel on appeal Pursuant to People v. Wende”in which no issues were raised.

On October 4, 2007, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which she wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The order of wardship is affirmed.