Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re J.W. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B346934

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/2/26 In re J.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.W., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B346934
Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. CM0969B)
Law. (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

J.W. appeals from the juvenile court’s order adjudicating
him a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions
Code section 602 after the court sustained allegations that he
took a vehicle without consent and caused a hit and run resulting
in property damage in September 2024. (Veh. Code, § 10851,
subd. (a), count 1; § 20002, subd. (a), count 2.)
On September 21, 2024, law enforcement was informed of a
“stolen” 2016/2017 black Kia Sorrento. A pursuit ensued and the
driver ultimately stopped the Kia and collided with another
vehicle causing damage. The driver exited the vehicle and
“began running” toward a residential neighborhood. The driver
was later apprehended in a backyard and identified as J.W.
Following a contested adjudication hearing, the juvenile
court denied J.W.’s motion to dismiss based on insufficient
evidence and found both counts true. At the disposition hearing,
J.M. was declared a ward of the court under the supervision of
probation with conditions.
We appointed counsel to represent J.W in this appeal.
After counsel’s examination of the record, counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues. On November 12, 2025, we
advised J.W. that he had 30 days within which to personally
submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on
appeal. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
counsel has fully complied with their responsibilities and that no
arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441.) The juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P. J. CODY, J.

2
Melissa N. Widdifield, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.