In re A.E. CA4/3

Filed 2/8/24 In re A.E. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re A.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G062617 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23DL0412) v. OPINION A.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Joe T. Perez, Judge. Dismissed. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

There is very little to be said about this case, which comes to us as a Wende appeal from appointed counsel. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Because the matter was transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court for disposition, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISCUSSION Appellant, a minor, was charged in Orange County Juvenile Court with one count of robbery. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a).) Following the jurisdictional hearing, the court sustained the allegation and released appellant to his mother, who resides in Los Angeles County. It then transferred the case to Los Angeles County for disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 375, subd. (a).) Seeking review of the court’s jurisdictional findings, appellant appealed in this court. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case, but he was unable to find any arguable issues to raise on appellant’s behalf. He therefore invited us to review the record pursuant to Wende. Counsel also pointed out as a “potential issue” that this court may lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal, due to the transfer order. Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him. Counsel rightly flagged jurisdiction as a potential issue in this appeal. Although appellant is challenging the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings, those findings are not separately appealable from the dispositional order. (In re Hunter W. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 358, 368; In re James J. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1339, 1342- 1343.) Because the case was transferred to Los Angeles County for disposition, appellate jurisdiction lies in that county, and we do not have the authority to consider appellant’s appeal.