In re D.R.
Filed 10/27/06 In re D.R. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| In re D.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.R., Defendant and Appellant. | A112711 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW05-6853) |
The San Francisco County juvenile court sustained a wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) against defendant D.R. The court found that defendant had committed two offenses, minor in possession of a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (a)(1)), and minor in possession of live ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (b)(1)). After the jurisdictional order, the juvenile court transferred the matter for disposition to Contra Costa County, the county of defendant’s residence and where he is on probation.
Defendant purports to appeal the San Francisco court’s jurisdictional order, arguing the order is not supported by sufficient evidence. The Attorney General asks this court to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the jurisdictional order “is in the nature of an intermediate order. [Citations.]” (In re James J. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1339, 1342 (James J.).) Juvenile court jurisdictional orders are not separately appealable. (In re Sheila B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 187, 196; In re Jennifer V. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1209; James J., supra, at pp. 1342-1343.)
In James J., the minor attempted to appeal from a jurisdictional order in one county after the case had been transferred to another county for disposition. The James J. court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the minor could seek review of the interim jurisdictional finding on the ultimate appeal from the disposition. (James J., supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1342-1343.)
The present case presents the identical situation. The rationale of James J. dictates dismissal. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss this appeal.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Stein, J.
______________________
Swager, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
