Court Opinion

ID: 9952768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 18:02:43.491124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:25.483813
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/20/24 In re J.T. CA1/1
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 ONE

 In re J.T., a Person Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.
 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
 v.
 J.T.,                                                                  A168847
           Defendant and Appellant.
                                                                        (Napa County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. 202336752-01)

         Following J.T.’s admission to two counts of a lewd act upon a child, the
juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court, ordered him detained
pending placement in a short-term residential treatment program, and
placed him on probation with various terms and conditions. We modify the
dispositional order to include J.T.’s maximum term of confinement. We
otherwise affirm.
                                                  I. BACKGROUND
         A delinquency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) filed on
July 18, 2023, alleged J.T. committed eight counts of a lewd act upon a child
(Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and two counts of oral copulation of a person

                                                               1
under eighteen (Pen. Code, § 287, subd. (b)(1)).1 As described in the
subsequent probation report, J.T. and his family were having dinner at a
friend’s house when J.T.’s eight-year-old brother reportedly licked the friend’s
son’s penis. The brother revealed that J.T. “had been doing the same thing to
him for over a year.” A social worker interviewed the brother and J.T.’s
younger sister, the latter of whom said J.T. had also touched her genitals on
multiple occasions.
        At a hearing a few days later, the juvenile court appointed counsel for
J.T. Counsel waived the reading of the petition and the advisement of rights.
(§§ 633, 700.) The court found the People had made a prima facie showing
that J.T. met the requirements for jurisdiction under section 602, and it
ordered him detained pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule
5.760(c)(1)(E), considering there were no other family members who could
care for either J.T. or his siblings.
        At an uncontested jurisdictional hearing on August 9, 2023, J.T.
admitted to two counts of a lewd act upon a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd.
(a).) Upon motion of the People, the juvenile court dismissed the remaining
counts. The court sustained the petition, finding J.T. to be a minor described
by section 602. It ordered a psychological evaluation of J.T. under Penal
Code section 288.1 and set the dispositional hearing.
        The probation report prepared for the dispositional hearing noted
concerns that J.T. and his mother were minimizing his conduct. Accordingly,
the report recommended J.T. be detained in juvenile hall pending placement
in a short-term residential program for sex offenders and be placed on
probation subject to various terms and conditions.

        1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.

                                        2
      On the first day of the dispositional hearing on October 3, 2023, the
juvenile court heard testimony from the psychiatrist who evaluated J.T. He
testified that while he did not find “any pathology,” and he concluded J.T.
was unlikely to reoffend against his siblings, he was unable to complete a full
assessment. He also acknowledged that J.T. “minimized the severity and
frequency of his conduct,” and he could not rule out a “high degree of
unconscious denial.”
      At the continued dispositional hearing the next day, the juvenile court
declared J.T. a ward of the court and adopted the recommendations of the
probation officer with a few minor modifications. J.T.’s counsel did not object
to any of the terms and conditions of his probation except for the condition
that he be placed in a short-term residential treatment program for sex
offenders.
                                 II. DISCUSSION
      J.T.’s counsel has filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case but
advising the court under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, disapproved on other grounds in In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952,
959, no issues were found to argue on J.T.’s behalf. Counsel also apprised us
in her declaration that she notified J.T. that he can file a supplemental brief
with this court. No supplemental brief has been received.
      Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119,
we have independently reviewed the entire record and have found, generally
speaking, there are no arguable issues. J.T. was represented by counsel
throughout the proceedings. The juvenile court properly advised J.T. of his
constitutional rights, and J.T. voluntarily waived them. His admissions were
validly entered, and his counsel stipulated to a factual basis for his
admissions. (People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 118.) The court did not

                                        3
abuse its discretion in ordering sex offender-specific short-term residential
treatment for J.T. (In re Darryl T. (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 874, 877, superseded
by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Dorothy B. (1986) 182
Cal.App.3d 509, 518.) Counsel did not object to the other probation
conditions, and they are not facially defective.2 (In re I.V. (2017) 11
Cal.App.5th 249, 260–261.)
      We note, however, that—although the juvenile court advised J.T.
during the jurisdictional hearing that he could be confined for a maximum
period of 8 years—when the court committed him to juvenile hall pending
placement into a short-term residential treatment program at the
dispositional hearing, it did not specify the minor’s maximum term of
confinement in either its oral pronouncement or its written order as required
by law. (In re David H. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1133; see § 726, subd.
(d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.795(b).) The court was correct that the
maximum confinement term was 8 years. (§ 726, subd. (d)(1)–(3); Pen. Code,
§§ 288, subd. (a), 1170.1, subd. (a).) We modify the dispositional order
accordingly.
                              III.   DISPOSITION
      The October 4, 2023 dispositional order is modified to reflect that J.T.’s
maximum period of confinement is 8 years. As so modified, the order is
affirmed.

      2 The probation terms included paying restitution to the victims “in an

amount to be determined.” (§ 730.6, subds. (a)(1), (2)(B), (h); see In re A.R.
(2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 184, 188–189 [section 730.6 does not prohibit a later
restitution hearing].) We do not have a record of the hearing determining the
final restitution amount.

                                        4
                                        LANGHORNE WILSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

BANKE, ACTING P. J.

CASTRO, J.

A168847N


 Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                    5