Filed 8/29/18 In re Jonathan A. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re JONATHAN A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONATHAN A., Defendant and Appellant. |
A153377
(Napa County Super. Ct. No. JV17409-E) |
Jonathan A. appeals from a juvenile court order recalling his arrest warrant and dismissing wardship proceedings unsuccessfully. His appointed counsel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We have reviewed the record and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2013, the juvenile court declared Jonathan—then 16 years old—a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)[1] after he admitted threatening a police officer and committing vandalism for the benefit of a street gang. The court placed Jonathan on probation. In 2013, Jonathan admitted intimidating a witness and violating probation; the court continued wardship and probation. In June 2014, Jonathan admitted violating probation. He was released pursuant to a home detention agreement but ran away before the disposition hearing. Later that month, the prosecution filed a supplemental wardship petition; the amended petition alleged Jonathan committed several crimes and violated probation. The juvenile court issued an arrest warrant. In 2016, the probation department was informed Jonathan had “been living in Mexico for a number of years.”
Jonathan turned 21 in December 2017. Several days later, the probation department requested the court recall the arrest warrant and dismiss the wardship proceedings “unsuccessfully.” Probation noted that over two years had passed since the issuance of the arrest warrant, and that Jonathan was 21 years old and “pursuant to section 607 . . . no longer falls within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court.” At a January 2018 hearing, the court granted the request and ordered the arrest warrant recalled and “wardship and all proceedings dismissed unsuccessfully.”
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and wrote to Jonathan at his last known address to inform him of his right to file a supplemental brief. Jonathan has not filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) The court acted within its authority in issuing the order. (§ 607, subd. (e).)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
____________________
Jones. P.J.
We concur:
____________________
Simons, J.
____________________
Bruiniers, J.
A153377
[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
