In re J.M. CA2/6 ( 2024 )

Filed 7/11/24 In re J.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.M., a Person Coming 2d Crim. No. B330977
Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. 22JV-00371)
Law. (San Luis Obispo County)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
J.M. appeals from the juvenile court’s order adjudicating
him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions
Code1 section 602 after the court sustained an allegation that he
committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242).
In December 2022, J.M. became angry with his parents
after they threatened to take away his recreational reading
materials and electronics due to his poor grades. His argument
with his parents escalated. His father slapped J.M. in the face
with an open hand, and J.M. punched his father in the face with
a closed fist.2
The amended juvenile petition alleged two counts of
misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242). Following a contested
jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found count 2 true, but
found count 1 not true. The court granted a section 778 petition
so that the matter came under dual jurisdiction, as J.M. fit the
criteria of both dependency and wardship pursuant to section
241.1. Child Welfare Services was declared the lead agency and
the dependency court as the lead court.
At the disposition hearing, J.M. was declared a ward of the
court under the supervision of probation. The court imposed
several terms and conditions of his probation, including that he
serve 78 days in custody at juvenile hall with 78 days of credit for
time served.
We appointed counsel to represent J.M. in this appeal.
After counsel’s examination of the record, counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues. On May 14, 2024, we advised
J.M. that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any
1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 The facts relate only to count 2.
2
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
counsel has fully complied with their responsibilities and that no
arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P. J.
CODY, J.
3
Gayle L. Peron, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.