Opinion
A161559
06-25-2021
In re Jacob P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACOB P., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J20-00356
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)
STREETER, J.
Appellant Jacob P. appeals the juvenile court's order placing him on informal probation. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief asking us to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
The record reveals the following.
Dispatched to the scene of a reported brandishing of a weapon late in the afternoon of May 5, 2020, a police officer took a statement from the victim, Javier Picazo. Picazo said he encountered a car that was driving slowly, so he sped up and overtook it. Later, as Picazo was stopped at a stoplight, the car he had passed pulled up alongside of him. A passenger Picazo described as a White male said something to him he could not understand, pulled out what appeared to be a pistol, and said, “What now?” The vehicle then drove away.
Another officer identified and pulled over the suspect vehicle, which was being driven by K.S. Jacob P., who was 17 years old at the time, was a passenger in K.S.'s car. According to a statement given by K.S., Picazo “cut off” her vehicle by driving in front of her on the roadway. She then pulled up alongside Picazo's vehicle, and Picazo “started calling [Jacob P.] a ‘stupid idiot.' ” That led to Jacob P. pulling out what appeared to be a handgun-but was actually a BB gun-and pointing it at Picazo.
For his part, Jacob P. gave a version of events that was largely similar to the accounts given by K.P. and Picazo, except he claimed that Picazo “started to open his car door” and so he pointed his BB gun at Picazo in order “to scare him away....”
Two months later, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 600 juvenile wardship petition was filed against Jacob P., who had turned 18 by that time. The petition charged Jacob P. with one count of misdemeanor brandishing of an imitation firearm under Penal Code section 417.4. At Jacob P.'s request, and upon the recommendation of the probation department, the court placed Jacob P. on a six-month term of informal probation, imposing a number of probation conditions.
Jacob P.'s counsel interposed objections as to only two of 12 proposed “standard probation conditions.” He objected, first, that language in the proposed “obey all laws... and rules” condition requiring him to abide by the rules of any “placement or county institution staff and rules” is inappropriate because Jacob P. has reached the age of majority and therefore may not now be placed in foster care or in a juvenile detention facility, and, second, that the curfew condition has no relation to the crime, which occurred in daylight hours, and infringes Jacob P.'s First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to travel. In the probation conditions as entered, the court struck the language Jacob P.'s counsel found objectionable in the “obey all laws... and rules” condition and modified the curfew to midnight to 6 a.m. after an on-the-record discussion with Jacob P.'s mother as to his “general hours, ” considering his employment hours and any “peaceful protest” activities that may have been occurring at the time.
The Wende brief filed by Jacob P.'s counsel does not draw our attention to any issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Jacob P. was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he failed to file anything. Following Wende guidelines, we have conducted an independent review of the record and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal. A former minor is subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the juvenile court until at least age 21 if he or she is alleged to have violated the laws of this state when under the age of 18 years. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a); see In re Antoine D. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1320.) Imposition of informal probation for a term not to exceed six months is not only an authorized disposition of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 600 petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 725, subd. (a); see D.M. v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1123), it is the disposition Jacob P. requested here. We see no error in the court's disposition of this case by informal probation and no infirmity any of conditions of informal probation.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order of informal probation is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: POLLAK, P.J., BROWN, J.