In re Juan U.
Filed 1/2/08 In re Juan U. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
In re JUAN U., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B197795 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ40194) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN U., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Patricia Nieto, Referee. Affirmed.
Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
While walking on the street, Juan U., then 17 years old, made eye contact with an undercover police officer, before entering the officers car and agreeing to engage in oral sex for $100. Juan U. was arrested, and the district attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging Juan U. had committed the misdemeanor offenses of engaging in prostitution (Pen. Code, 647, subd. (b)) and loitering to commit prostitution (Pen. Code, 653.22, subd. (a)).
Juan U. admitted the allegations in the petition. The juvenile court sustained the petition, found Juan U. a ward of the court, placed him on probation for six months pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a). Juan U. filed a timely notice of appeal. (See In re Do Kyung K. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 583, 590 [juvenile may appeal order placing him on probation without wardship pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code, 725, subd. (a)].)
We appointed counsel to represent Juan U. on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On September 25, 2007 we advised Juan U. he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Juan U.s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The order under review is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WOODS, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J. ZELON, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
