California Cases February 17, 2021: People v. J.B. (In re J.B.)

Case Description

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 20JV44069A)

The juvenile court sustained a juvenile wardship petition alleging that J.B. had committed three felonies and one misdemeanor and ordered him to serve 30 days on an electronic monitoring program. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.

On January 30, 2020, around noon, J.B. and two others (one of whom was a juvenile and one an adult) drove a stolen car to a home in Fremont, California. There, they kicked open a door and ransacked the home, which belonged to an 84-year-old

Page 2

woman. They stole from the home jewelry, cash, and coins, and drove away in the homeowner's Cadillac. Police were able to locate surveillance video of events later that day, which showed J.B. driving the Cadillac.

On February 3, 2020, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that J.B. had committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (a); count 1), taking or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 2), buying or receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); count 3), and misdemeanor resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer, (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 4). Following a contested detention hearing on February 4, 2020, J.B. admitted the charges and stipulated that the vehicle referenced in count 2 had a value over $950. The juvenile court ordered J.B. detained and referred him to the probation department for evaluation of his suitability for Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ).

On February 21, 2020, the probation department filed a report in the trial court recommending that the juvenile court find J.B. unsuitable for DEJ based on his lack of maturity, failure to remain in school, substance abuse, and lack of demonstrated commitment to the DEJ program. At a hearing held that day, the juvenile court found that J.B. was not a good candidate for DEJ and ordered him released on electronic monitoring until the next court date. In addition, the juvenile court sustained the petition and declared counts 1 through 3 to be felonies and count 4 a misdemeanor.

On March 10, 2020, the juvenile court conducted the dispositional hearing. The juvenile court declared J.B. a ward of the court and, without objection from J.B., adopted the recommendations contained in the probation report. Specifically, the juvenile court placed J.B. on probation, subject to a number of terms and conditions and ordered J.B. to serve 30 days on electronic monitoring.

Page 3

We appointed counsel to represent J.B. on appeal. Appellate counsel filed an opening brief stating the case and the facts but raising no specific legal issues. Counsel has declared that counsel notified J.B. both of counsel's intention to request independent review under People v . Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), and of J.B.'s right to file written argument on his own behalf. We notified J.B. of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but have received no response from him.

We have reviewed the record under Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v . Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Concluding there is no arguable issue on appeal, we affirm the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Page 4

/s/ _________
Danner, J.

WE CONCUR:

/s/ _________
Elia, Acting P.J.

/s/ _________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.