From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re J.T.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Jan 24, 2020
A157787 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2020)

Opinion

A157787

01-24-2020

In re J.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.T., Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 201835792-02)

J.T. (appellant) was found to be a ward of the juvenile court after he admitted a single count of misdemeanor possession of a weapon on school grounds. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a).) He was placed on probation and appeals from an order terminating that probation unsuccessfully after his family moved to Mexico. His court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.

Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. --------

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 3, 2018, appellant's mother called the school he attended to report that he had exchanged text messages with another student and she was concerned that he was preparing for an armed confrontation with that student. School officials found appellant, who was 12 years old at the time, in possession of a box cutter and knife on school grounds. On January 2, 2019, appellant was declared a ward of the juvenile court after he admitted a misdemeanor charge of possession of a weapon on school grounds. He was placed on probation.

On June 5, 2019, the court considered appellant's request to terminate his probation in anticipation of the family's move to Mexico. The probation officer advised the court by letter that appellant had complied with several aspects of his probation, including community service ordered by the court, substance abuse testing, family therapy and regular attendance of school. But he had engaged in several concerning behaviors, including bringing a plastic gun to school and "firing" it in class, threatening school staff, taking another student's backpack and refusing to give it back, and attempting to kick and trip football players from behind. Appellant had accumulated nine disciplinary referrals, including a school suspension for threatening staff.

The court indicated that it was inclined to terminate probation unsuccessfully, noting that appellant could petition the court at a later date to seal his juvenile record. (See § 781, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Defense counsel argued that appellant had substantially complied with the terms of his probation, that his behavior was the product of immaturity, and that probation should be terminated successfully. The court continued the case until June 26, 2019, at which point appellant and his family had moved to Mexico. The court ordered, "The minor failed to satisfactorily complete his grant of formal probation with wardship. All proceedings in the above-named case are dismissed unsuccessfully."

II. DISCUSSION

As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note that appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, and that appellant did not file such a brief. We conclude that an order terminating probation unsuccessfully is an order after judgment that affects appellant's substantial rights and is appealable under section 800, subdivision (a). But we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find none.

A defendant who has "satisfactorily" completed juvenile probation is entitled to have the records from the case sealed under section 786. (See In re J.G. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 521, 525; § 786.) "Satisfactory" completion of probation "shall be deemed to have occurred if the person has no new findings or wardship or conviction for a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude during the period of supervision or probation and if the person has not failed to substantially comply with the reasonable orders of supervision or probation that are within their capacity to perform." (§ 786, subd. (c)(1), italics added.) A defendant who is not eligible to have juvenile court records sealed under section 786 may still be eligible to have those records sealed under section 781 if, after attaining the age of 18, he or she petitions the juvenile court for sealing of the records and "[i]f, after hearing, the court finds that since the termination of jurisdiction . . . [the petitioner] has not been convicted of a felony or of any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude and that rehabilitation has been attained to the satisfaction of the court." (§ 781, subd. (a)(1)(A); see In re N.R. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 590, 599, fn. 4.)

Here, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining appellant had not "satisfactorily" completed probation. (See In re J.W. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 663, 668 [denial of a petition to seal records reviewed for abuse of discretion].) The conduct described by the probation officer—nine disciplinary referrals at school—violated the probation term that required appellant to "obey all school regulations" and showed that he had "failed to substantially comply" with that condition. (§ 786, subd. (c)(1).) Defense counsel argued the referrals were the product of immaturity and indicated that no probation violation had been filed. Although he noted that no hearing had been held regarding the referrals, he did not contest their truth or request a hearing. We note that appellant can seek to have his records sealed under section 781 when and if he is eligible to do so.

We are satisfied that appellant's appointed attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of appellate counsel and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 283.)

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/_________

NEEDHAM, J. We concur. /s/_________
SIMONS, ACTING P.J. /s/_________
BURNS, J.


Summaries of

In re J.T.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Jan 24, 2020
A157787 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2020)
Case details for

In re J.T.

Case Details

Full title:In re J.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

Date published: Jan 24, 2020

Citations

A157787 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2020)