Opinion
B233340
10-31-2011
In re IRVIN R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IRVIN R., Defendant and Appellant.
Jolene Larimore, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PJ46866)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Fred J. Fujioka, Judge. Affirmed.
Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In August 2010, a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleged that in 2007 Irvin R. (the minor), then 15 years old, committed the crimes of forcible lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1), counts 1 and 2), sexual battery by restraint (§ 243.4, subd. (a), count 3) and attempted forcible lewd act upon a child (§§ 288, subd. (b)(1), 664).
Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
At the jurisdiction hearing in May 2011, Lizabeth R. testified that when she was about 12 years old, her cousin, the minor, touched her breast and vaginal area on two occasions during a family camping trip in June 2007, and attempted to do so again about a month later.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found the minor used no force and thus sustained the petition as to the lesser included offenses of lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a), counts 1 and 2), sexual battery (§ 242.4, subd. (e)(1), count 3) and attempted lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a), count 4).
At the disposition hearing, the court declared the minor a ward of the court and ordered him home on probation. This appeal followed.
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On August 12, 2011, we advised the minor 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 the minor'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, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order is affirmed.
WOODS , J.