In re J.W. CA2/6

Filed 3/2/26 In re J.W. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re J.W., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B346934 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. CM0969B) Law. (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

J.W. 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 allegations that he took a vehicle without consent and caused a hit and run resulting in property damage in September 2024. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 1; § 20002, subd. (a), count 2.)

On September 21, 2024, law enforcement was informed of a “stolen” 2016/2017 black Kia Sorrento. A pursuit ensued and the driver ultimately stopped the Kia and collided with another vehicle causing damage. The driver exited the vehicle and “began running” toward a residential neighborhood. The driver was later apprehended in a backyard and identified as J.W. Following a contested adjudication hearing, the juvenile court denied J.W.’s motion to dismiss based on insufficient evidence and found both counts true. At the disposition hearing, J.M. was declared a ward of the court under the supervision of probation with conditions. We appointed counsel to represent J.W in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On November 12, 2025, we advised J.W. 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 juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.