Filed 11/28/22 In re V.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re V.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C095422 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JJC-JV-DE- 2021-0001348) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.A., Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for V.A. (minor) asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor, we will affirm the judgment.

I In March 2021, the Glenn County District Attorney’s office filed a petition alleging that minor, age 14 at the time, committed a lewd act upon a child under the age

of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), bringing minor within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.1 The Glenn County juvenile court gave notice of a jurisdiction hearing, but minor’s counsel waived time for the hearing. (See §§ 657, 682, subd. (d).) The juvenile court held an arraignment hearing, and minor’s counsel waived the reading of the petition and the advisement of rights. (See § 700; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.534(c), (d), (g).) Although minor had not been taken into custody, the probation officer requested that minor be released to his parents on home supervision pursuant to the terms of a written agreement. Minor signed the agreement without objection.

Minor’s counsel continued to waive time for the jurisdiction hearing, and the juvenile court held a contested jurisdiction hearing in October 2021. (See §§ 682, subd. (d), 701.) The juvenile court found the allegations of the petition true beyond a reasonable doubt and found that minor came within the court’s jurisdiction under section 602. (See § 702.) The juvenile court ordered the case transferred to the juvenile court in San Joaquin County, where minor resided, for a disposition hearing. (See § 750; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.610(c), (e), (f).)

The San Joaquin County juvenile court accepted the transfer. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.612.) Minor’s counsel waived time for the disposition hearing, and the juvenile court held the hearing in December 2021. (See § 682, subd. (d).) The juvenile court adjudged minor a ward of the court and ordered minor placed on probation under the supervision of the probation officer, subject to a number of conditions. (See §§ 725, 727, subd. (c).) Among those conditions, the juvenile court required minor to serve 60 days on an electronic monitoring program and 60 days in juvenile hall, with the juvenile

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

hall condition stayed pending satisfactory completion of probation. The juvenile court declined to impose any fines or fees.

Minor appealed from the disposition order.

II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.

More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from minor.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/S/ MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/ HULL, Acting P. J.

/S/ BOULWARE EURIE, J.