Opinion
B230488
10-19-2011
In re BYRON R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BYRON R., Defendant and Appellant.
Sarvenaz Bahar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JJ17898)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven R. Klaif, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Sarvenaz Bahar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Byron R. appeals from an order entered after the juvenile court found that he had committed forcible sodomy. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2010, police detained appellant, then 16 years old, for committing forcible sodomy (Pen. Code, § 286, subd. (c)(2)) and forcible rape (id., § 261, subd. (a)(2)) after he held down a classmate and sodomized her in a sound booth during a school play. The People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against him, which appellant denied.
Following a jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained the count of forcible sodomy and dismissed the remaining count of forcible rape. At the subsequent disposition hearing, after appellant showed proof he had completed a sex offender counseling program, the court declared him to be a ward of the court, and the offense to be a felony, and placed appellant home on probation. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On June 16, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appellant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (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 order is affirmed.
JACKSON, J. We concur:
WOODS, Acting P. J.
ZELON, J.