In re A.A. CA2/6

Filed 10/29/21 In re A.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.A., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B312695 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. PJ53569) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.A. became a ward of the juvenile court in March of 2021 following a gang-related stabbing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.)1 The juvenile court ordered appellant to a suitable placement and he entered Boys Republic Youth Services in Pomona. A.A. struggled at the facility. He frequently challenged other minors to fight, ignored basic instructions, stole items from the kitchen,

Unlabeled statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code.

and degraded and intimidated the facility’s staff. He appeared under the influence of marijuana on most days and was observed smoking a vape pen in the bathroom. When his mother visited the facility, he discouraged her from participating in family therapy. A staff member also described him spraying her in the eyes and mouth with aerosol air freshener. Probation recommended terminating A.A.’s suitable placement based on violations of his terms of probation. (§ 777.) Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court adopted probation’s recommendation and ordered A.A. to a camp community placement program. A.A. appeals this order. We appointed counsel to represent appellant. Counsel examined the record and filed an opening brief requesting the court independently review this case under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (See In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [Wende procedure applies in juvenile delinquency appeals].) We advised appellant on September 8, 2021 that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) The juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.