Opinion
B330977
07-11-2024
In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.M., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Gayle L. Peron, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. 22JV-00371) (San Luis Obispo County)
Gayle L. Peron, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BALTODANO, J.
J.M. appeals from the juvenile court's order adjudicating him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after the court sustained an allegation that he committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242).
Further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In December 2022, J.M. became angry with his parents after they threatened to take away his recreational reading materials and electronics due to his poor grades. His argument with his parents escalated. His father slapped J.M. in the face with an open hand, and J.M. punched his father in the face with a closed fist.
The facts relate only to count 2.
The amended juvenile petition alleged two counts of misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242). Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found count 2 true, but found count 1 not true. The court granted a section 778 petition so that the matter came under dual jurisdiction, as J.M. fit the criteria of both dependency and wardship pursuant to section 241.1. Child Welfare Services was declared the lead agency and the dependency court as the lead court.
At the disposition hearing, J.M. was declared a ward of the court under the supervision of probation. The court imposed several terms and conditions of his probation, including that he serve 78 days in custody at juvenile hall with 78 days of credit for time served.
We appointed counsel to represent J.M. in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On May 14, 2024, we advised J.M. that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with their responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, Acting P. J. CODY, J.