In re R.R. CA3

Filed 3/13/23 In re R.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re R.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C097070 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV141303)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for the minor R.R. asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor, we will affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND On May 27, 2021, the minor and a group of fellow students attacked B.F., with the minor punching B.F. approximately 20 times. Someone took B.F.’s cell phone. Police officers took the minor into custody but he was released the same day by the probation department to his mother on house arrest, pending installation of an electronic monitoring system. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 628, 628.1.)1 On June 1, 2021, the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office filed a petition alleging that the minor, age 13 at the time, committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), bringing the minor within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court (§§ 602, 650). The juvenile court held a detention hearing on June 2, 2021. (§ 632.) The court appointed counsel for the minor, and counsel waived the reading of the petition and the advisement of rights. (§§ 633, 634, 700; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.534(c), (d), (g), 5.754(a).) The court found the People had made a prima facie showing that the minor met the requirements for jurisdiction under section 602 and found electronic monitoring necessary for the immediate and urgent protection of the minor and for the protection of the person or property of another. (§§ 602, 635; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.760(c)-(f), (j)-(k).) Accordingly, the court ordered the minor continued on electronic monitoring and ordered the minor not to contact the victim and not to associate with an alleged coparticipant. (§§ 636, 628.1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.760(l).) The minor’s counsel waived time for the jurisdiction hearing, and the court set a settlement conference date. (§ 657.) At the next hearing, the juvenile court removed the electronic monitoring requirement but placed the minor on home supervision and, with the minor’s counsel waiving time, reset the settlement conference for a later date. After another continuance,