Filed 9/18/18 In re J.L. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
| In re J.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
| 2d Juv. No. B285791 (Super. Ct. No. MJ23399) (Los Angeles County) |
|
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
|
The juvenile court sustained allegations that J.L. received stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and declared him a ward of the court (Welf & Inst. Code, § 602). The court placed him home on probation with terms and conditions. J.L. was ordered to report any change in address and complete his GED.
J.L. and his mother met with probation regarding a planned relocation to Colorado. Probation agreed and both J.L. and his mother signed an Interstate Compact agreement. They moved to Colorado. Later, J.L. moved from his listed address to a different location without notifying probation. Probation attempted to contact his mother at the listed telephone number on file but she did not answer and there was no means of leaving a message.
The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction because J.L. was then 19 years old and no additional services were available. It denied defense counsel’s request that J.L.’s record be sealed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786. It found that J.L. did not satisfactorily complete probation because he did not report his change in address and did not show proof of completing his GED.
We appointed counsel to represent J.L. in this appeal. After counsel examined the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues. On July 20, 2018, we advised J.L. by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that J.L.’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
TANGEMAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J.
Denise M. McLaughlin-Bennett, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
