In re R.R. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel identified the following issues that “might arguably support the appeal” (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744) whether: (1) the court

3 erred in denying R.R.’s motion for informal supervision; (2) sufficient evidence existed showing R.R. knew right from wrong and (3) committed attempted robbery; and (4) the court abused its discretion in adjudicating R.R. a ward of the court. We granted R.R. permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. Once a juvenile wardship petition has been filed, the court is authorized to grant informal probation in lieu of declaring the minor a ward of the court. (§ 654.2, subd. (a); Kody P. v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1033.) We review an order denying section 654.2 diversion for an abuse of discretion. (In re Armondo A. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1189.) We will reverse such an order only if the court “has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary,…