Court Opinion

ID: 9896606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 20:04:28.851843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:08.650900
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/13/23 In re C.C. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.C., a Person Coming                                  2d Juv. No. B329426
 Under the Juvenile Court                                   (Super. Ct. No. FJ57885)
 Law.                                                         (Los Angeles County)

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 C.C.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

         C.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his
suppression motion. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 700.1.) The section
602 petition, as amended, alleged appellant carried a loaded
firearm not registered to him on his person in a public place.

         1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
(Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(6).) After his motion to suppress
evidence was denied (§ 700.1), he pleaded no contest. The
juvenile court granted deferred entry of judgment. (§ 790 et seq.)
       We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.
After counsel examined the record, she filed an opening brief that
raises no arguable issues, noting that the order was not
appealable. On September 11, 2023, we advised appellant by
mail that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he
wished us to consider. We have not received a response.
       Denial of a motion to suppress pursuant to section 700.1
followed by deferred entry of judgment pursuant to section 790 et
seq. is not an appealable judgment or order. (In re Mario C.
(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1308-1309.) Accordingly, the
appeal must be dismissed.
       We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
appellant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities
and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.         CODY, J.

                                2
            Benjamin R. Campos, Temporary Judge
            (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. IV, § 21.)

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

               ______________________________

      Dee A. Hayashi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.