In re V.Z. CA2/8

Filed 7/25/13 In re V.Z. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re V.Z., a Person Coming Under the B244524 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GJ 29517)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

V.Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Robert Leventer, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________________

SUMMARY The juvenile court found the minor, V.Z., to be a habitual truant and placed her home on probation. She contends the admission of the evidence of her truancy violated her Sixth Amendment rights under the confrontation clause and was inadmissible hearsay. The minor forfeited these contentions by failing to object before the close of the prosecution’s case, and in any event, they have no merit. We affirm the juvenile court’s order. FACTS Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, subdivision (b) (section 601) provides that if a minor has four or more truancies within one school year, as defined in Education Code section 48260, or if “a school attendance review board . . . determines that the available public and private services are insufficient or inappropriate to correct the habitual truancy of the minor, . . . or if the minor fails to respond to directives of a school attendance review board . . . , the minor is then within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court.” In February 2012, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition alleging the minor came within the provisions of section 601 as a habitual truant. The petition identified 20 days in the late summer and fall of 2011 during which the minor was absent or tardy without valid excuse, and also alleged the minor and her parents had been referred to the school attendance review board in December 2010 and to the district attorney’s mediation program in September 2011, all to no effect. The minor declined to admit she was truant from school and a hearing ensued. Scott Anderle, the assistant director of student services for the Glendale Unified School District, was the only witness. He testified he was familiar with the procedures surrounding chronic truancies and was familiar with the minor’s truancy. Anderle had attended the district attorney’s referral hearing in the minor’s case. He identified the documents recording the minor’s school attendance, which were marked for identification as exhibits, and explained how the records were generated. The teachers take attendance in the classroom, and that data, entered both by name and student