In re Orlando M.
Filed 6/27/06 In re Orlando M. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| In re ORLANDO M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B185076 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PJ30049) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ORLANDO M., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Morton Rochman, Judge. Affirmed.
Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Orlando M. appeals from an order continuing him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and committing him to the California Youth Authority following his admission that he committed a misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242) and following a contested disposition hearing. Previously, appellant had four sustained petitions pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. His maximum confinement time was set at seven years and six months.[1]
After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On May 1, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
WILLHITE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Pursuant to appellant's request, judicial notice is taken of a letter dated August 24, 2005, from the Department of Corrections filed September 2, 2005 in the Juvenile Court file and a nunc pro tunc minute order entered December 13, 2005, changing appellant's maximum confinement time from seven years two months to seven years six months.
