In re Amaya B. CA2/7

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Amaya on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On April 29, 2015 we advised Amaya that she had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues she wanted us to consider. We have received no response. We have examined the record and are satisfied Amaya’s attorney on appeal has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and there are no arguable issues.1 (See 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, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) When the juvenile court sustained the delinquency petition and placed Amaya on probation, however, the court did not adjudicate her a ward of the court. Although the clerk’s minute order indicates Amaya was declared a ward of the court, “[w]hen there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Morales (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1587, 1594.) “‘The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order. . . .…