In re Leslie D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/5/13  In re Leslie D. CA2/5

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE

 

 

 
>

In re LESLIE D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B247718       (Los Angeles County Super. Ct.        No. VJ39313)
THE PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   LESLIE D.,               Defendant and Appellant.

 

            APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Fumiko Wasserman, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Gerald
Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

__________________________________

 

            Appellant
Leslie D. appeals from the order of the juvenile court sustaining petitions
under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 602 and 777,href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^[1] and the dispositional order entered after the petitions
were sustained.  This court appointed href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">counsel to represent defendant on
appeal.  On June 19, 2013, appointed
counsel filed a brief raising no issues, asking this court to independently
review the record for arguable appellate contentions under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.  Appellant was advised of her right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days.  No
supplemental brief has been received.

            We have
completed our independent review of
the record, which shows appellant was the subject of two prior sustained
petitions under section 602.  This appeal
follows a contested hearing on a third section 602 petition, which was combined
with a probation violation under section 777. 
The juvenile court found appellant committed misdemeanor battery (Pen.
Code § 242) and violated probation by slapping her mother.  In doing so, the court expressly resolved
credibility issues in favor of mother’s testimony over that of appellant, who
claimed her mother fabricated the incident in order to have appellant removed
from the home.

            The
juvenile court’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.  The dispositional order of suitable
placement, and the various terms and conditions of probation, are clear and
reasonably related to appellant’s current and prior cases.

            We are
satisfied there are no arguable contentions on appeal.  The judgment is affirmed.  (Smith v. Robbins
(2000) 528 U.S.
259.)

 

 

                        KRIEGLER,
J.

 

We concur:

 

 

                        TURNER,
P. J.                                                                       MOSK,
J.