1

Filed 2/28/22 P. v. D.F. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.F.,

Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 A162417

 (Contra Costa County

Superior Court No. J15-

00199)

After numerous sustained juvenile petitions, probation 

violations, and adult arrests, the juvenile court terminated 

defendant D.F.’s status as a non-minor dependent and set aside 

its placement order. Counsel for D.F. filed an opening brief 

asking that this court conduct an independent review of the 

record for arguable issues—i.e., those that are not frivolous, 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 

Counsel also informed D.F. that he had the right to file a 

supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he declined to do so. 

Because this appeal is not a first appeal from a criminal 

conviction, and because defendant has failed to file a 

supplemental brief requesting our independent review of any 

issues, we will dismiss the appeal. 
2

BACKGROUND

D.F.’s first sustained juvenile petition was on August 5, 

2016, shortly after his fifteenth birthday. He was declared a 

ward of the court and placed on home supervision. Within four 

months, he had admitted two violations of the conditions of his 

probation, one for misdemeanor battery and another for removing 

his ankle monitor and leaving home. In 2017, new supplemental 

petitions and probation violations were sustained based on 

incidents involving shoplifting, assault, and violating his curfew. 

After an additional probation violation in 2018, D.F. was placed 

out of his mother’s home at the Boys Republic facility on October 

30, 2018. 

In early May 2019, a few weeks before his 18th birthday, 

D.F. was involved in multiple incidents relating to his placement 

at Boys Republic, including verbal and physical altercations with 

peers and staff, as well as damaging a Boys Republic rented car. 

Boys Republic staff requested emergency removal of D.F. from 

the facility, and the probation department filed a notice of 

violation alleging that D.F. had violated the conditions of his 

probation. D.F. admitted a probation violation on May 20, 2019; 

he was released to his mother’s custody, but she had repeatedly 

stated she did not want to house him. 

On June 3, 2019, a few days after D.F.’s 18th birthday, the 

probation department recommended that D.F. be adjudged a nonminor dependent (NMD) and continued as a ward of the juvenile 

court, and the court adopted that recommendation. D.F. moved 
3

into a transitional housing placement in Antioch on September 

27, 2019. 

On October 9, 2019, another probation violation petition 

was filed, alleging that D.F. had committed an armed robbery. 

D.F. was arrested and detained in his juvenile case, and adult 

charges were also filed. In January 2020, the juvenile court 

terminated D.F.’s wardship as unsuccessful and terminated his 

NMD status. 

In October 2020, D.F. filed a request to return to juvenile 

court jurisdiction and extended foster care (EFC). In connection 

with that request, D.F. stated he understood that failure to 

participate in the activities described in his transitional 

independent living case plan (TILCP) could result in his case 

being closed. On October 30, 2020, the court reinstated D.F.’s 

NMD status and placed him again in EFC, finding that D.F. 

intended to satisfy the Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 

11403, subdivision (b) requirements by attending a program or 

participating in an activity that will promote or help remove a 

barrier to employment. (§ 11403, subd. (b) [setting eligibility 

criteria for NMD status, including “participating in a program or 

activity designed to promote, or remove barriers to 

employment”].)

The juvenile probation department reported that D.F. was 

“doing outstanding” in April 2021, as he was living in a 

transitional housing program and working part-time. By July 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise noted. 
4

2021, however, the department filed a report recommending that 

the juvenile court again terminate D.F.’s NMD status, as D.F.’s 

adult probation officer reported that D.F. had been arrested in 

early June 2021 (shortly after his 20th birthday) and was facing a 

felony charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. D.F. had 

been remanded on this charge in adult court and was in custody 

at the Martinez Detention Facility. 

At an August 17, 2021 hearing (to which D.F. refused to be 

transported from the Martinez Detention Facility), the juvenile 

court found that it was not in D.F.’s best interests to remain 

under juvenile court jurisdiction. The court further found that 

D.F. did not meet the section 11403, subdivision (b) criteria to 

remain in foster care as an NMD and that D.F. was not 

participating in a reasonable and appropriate TILCP. The court 

therefore terminated D.F.’s NMD status, set aside his placement, 

and terminated juvenile court jurisdiction, without prejudice to 

D.F. applying to be reinstated as an NMD in the future. 

D.F.’s counsel in the juvenile court filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

As noted, D.F.’s appellate counsel filed an opening brief 

asking that this court conduct an independent review of the 

record pursuant to Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also 

informed defendant that he had the right to file a supplemental 

brief on his own behalf, but defendant has not done so. 

Wende review is constitutionally required only from a 

defendant’s first appeal from a criminal conviction. (People v. 

Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1028, review granted October 
5

14, 2020, S264278 (Cole) [Wende does not apply to appeals from 

the denial of postconviction relief]; People v. Figueras (2021) 

61 Cal.App.5th 108, 111, review granted May 12, 2021, S267870 

[following Cole].) As explained in Cole: “Wende set forth the 

procedures to be followed during the defendant’s ‘first appeal of 

right’—that is, during the direct appeal of his judgment of 

conviction and sentence.” (Cole, at p. 1031; People v. Freeman 

(2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 126, 133 [Wende procedures are 

inapplicable to appeal from an order revoking post-release 

community supervision, as such an appeal is not a direct appeal 

from a judgment of conviction]; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 

952, 959 [no Wende review in appeals from orders affecting 

parental custody in juvenile dependency cases]; People v. Dobson

(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1425 [no Wende review of order 

denying outpatient status pursuant to petition to restore 

competency under § 1026.2].) 

We will apply the reasoning of Cole and similar cases here, 

as defendant’s appeal from the order terminating his NMD status 

and setting aside his EFC placement is not a direct appeal from a 

judgment of conviction. Because defendant has failed to file a 

supplemental brief raising any issues for our review, we shall 

dismiss the appeal. (Cole, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 1028 [court 

may “dismiss appeal as abandoned” when counsel files a Wende 

brief and defendant fails to file a supplemental brief].) 

We briefly note, however, that the result would be no 

different if we exercised our discretion to conduct an independent 

review of the juvenile court’s orders. (People v. Flores (2020)
6

54 Cal.App.5th 266, 269 [court may exercise discretion to conduct 

Wende review even where it is not constitutionally required].) 

We review the decision to terminate NMD status for abuse of 

discretion. (In re Aaron S. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 507, 517.) 

Under section 452, the court “shall continue its jurisdiction to 

allow a nonminor dependent who is eligible for foster care 

placement pursuant to Section 11403 to remain in foster care,” 

unless certain exceptions apply. (§ 452, subd. (b), italics added.) 

Similarly, section 391 provides that a court shall continue 

dependency jurisdiction over a NMD unless the NMD cannot be 

located, the NMD no longer wishes to remain in dependency 

jurisdiction, or the NMD is not participating in a reasonable and 

appropriate TILCP. (§ 391, subds. (e)(1), (f).) Section 11403, 

subdivision (b) describes the requirements of a TILCP. (See In re 

Leon E. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 222, 227.) That statute requires a 

NMD to be employed at least 80 hours per month; participating 

in secondary, postsecondary, or vocational education; engaged in 

a program or activity designed to promote or remove barriers to 

employment; or incapable of engaging in any of the foregoing 

qualifying activities due to a medical condition. (§ 11403, 

subd. (b).) The juvenile court appropriately found that D.F. no 

longer remained an eligible NMD under section 11403, 

subdivision (b) in light of D.F.’s most recent criminal activity and 

his incarceration since June 5, 2021. Particularly given that D.F. 

already had an adult probation officer, the juvenile court did not 

abuse its discretion in terminating D.F.’s NMD status, setting 
7

aside his EFC placement, and terminating juvenile court 

jurisdiction.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

BROWN, J.

WE CONCUR:

POLLAK, P. J.

DESAUTELS, J.

People v. D.F. (A162417)

 Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of 

Alameda, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, 

section 6 of the California Constitution.