In re J.E. CA4/2

Filed 8/27/13 In re J.E. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re J.E., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
E058603
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. J248419)
v.
OPINION
J.E.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Brian D. Saunders,
Judge. Affirmed.
Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On February 7, 2013, J.E. was found in possession of a locking blade knife on her
high school campus when a security guard tackled her to the ground to separate her from
another student during a fight. J.E. was cited and released to her mother.
On March 12, 2013, the People filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging J.E. committed a felony by
possessing a locking blade knife on school grounds. (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a)(1))
On April 23, 2013, the juvenile court reduced the charge to a misdemeanor
pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b). J.E. admitted the allegation and was
placed on juvenile probation. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Upon J.E.’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has
filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement
of the case and potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to
undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered J.E. an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has
not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
RICHLI
J.
3