Opinion
B325243
09-14-2023
In re K.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. K.B., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Elana Goldstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. YJ41012, Terry T. Truong, Judge. Affirmed.
Elana Goldstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MOOR, J.
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained a wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), finding the allegations true beyond a reasonable doubt that minor K.B. committed second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211, count 1.) Subsequently, K.B. admitted a previous petition that alleged he committed misdemeanor trespassing (§ 601, count 3), which the juvenile court also found true. At a dispositional hearing for both petitions, the juvenile court declared K.B. a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and ordered him to suitable placement with other terms and conditions. K.B.'s maximum confinement was set at three years for robbery plus two months for trespassing.
A charge of carjacking in violation of section 215 (count 2) was also sustained but later dismissed on the prosecution's motion. The juvenile court dismissed a charge of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 3) for insufficient evidence.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
The juvenile court dismissed counts 1 and 2 of that petition.
K.B. timely appealed. We appointed counsel. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On July 12, 2023, we advised K.B. that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no arguable issues exist and that K.B.'s counsel has fully satisfied her responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279-284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: RUBIN, P. J., KIM, J.