Filed 10/20/26 In re J.T. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 FIVE
In re J.T., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, A174307
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Sonoma County
v.
Super. Ct. No. 25JV00413)
J.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appellant J.T. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating probation unsuccessfully. Appellant’s counsel has raised no
issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have
reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In March 11, 2025, the Sonoma County District Attorney filed a
juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602)1 alleging that
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
1
appellant, born June 2007, committed six offenses during an incident on
March 7. According to the probation officer’s report, appellant was
apprehended after fleeing from the police; a firearm was retrieved from an
area where appellant paused during his flight. On April 30, appellant
admitted the misdemeanor offense of giving false information to the police
(Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)). The remainder of the counts were dismissed
on the district attorney’s motion.
Separately, on March 26, 2025, a petition was filed alleging that
appellant committed a misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242). According to
the probation officer’s report, appellant punched another teenage boy who
was seated at a desk in a juvenile hall classroom. The victim was armed with
a sharpened pencil wrapped with masking tape and dental floss. On April
30, appellant admitted committing the offense.
A dispositional hearing was held on May 21, 2025. The court declared
wardship and placed appellant in the home of his mother with electronic
monitoring.
On August 1, 2025, probation filed a section 777, subdivision (a)
petition alleging that appellant violated probation on July 11. According to
the probation officer’s report, police were dispatched to a market for a
reported theft of alcohol by four juveniles. Police detained appellant, who
was helping a 16 year old push a shopping cart containing alcohol. A store
employee could not identify appellant but did identify the 16 year old as one
of those involved in the theft. On August 4, appellant admitted two probation
violation allegations. The juvenile court ordered him to serve six days in
juvenile hall with credit for six days already served, and to be released to his
mother on electronic monitoring for 30 to 45 days and alcohol monitoring for
30 days.
2
On August 27, 2025, the probation department alleged that appellant
violated probation by leaving his home without permission on August 16; by
failing to charge his electronic monitoring device, resulting in his
whereabouts being unknown for several hours on August 16; by failing to
submit 13 alcohol tests between August 6 and August 11; by consuming
marijuana and alcohol on August 17; and by punching another youth in
juvenile hall on August 20, following his detention on August 18. On
September 2, appellant admitted the five alleged probation violations.
The probation department recommended that appellant be ordered to
remain in juvenile hall for 216 to 240 days with 126 days’ credit for time
served and that, “upon completion of time served[,] all proceedings be
dismissed unsuccessfully.” At the September 2, 2025 dispositional hearing,
appellant’s counsel objected to the recommendation to dismiss all proceedings
“unsuccessfully” “ ‘upon completion of time served.’ ” Counsel argued the
court should not issue the order prospectively, stating, “[W]e have to evaluate
the individual at the time that whatever is occurring . . . in juvenile court,
and so I think this violates that.” The juvenile court committed appellant to
juvenile hall for 216 to 240 days with credit for 139 days already served. It
ordered that upon completion of the custodial term, “[a]ll delinquency
proceedings [be] dismissed unsuccessfully.”
On September 10, 2025, appellant filed a notice of appeal.
On November 7, 2025, appellant admitted he again violated probation
by “being in a physical fight with another youth.” The court ordered that
appellant serve 230 to 240 days at juvenile hall with 205 days’ credit for time
already served, and stated that all previous orders remained in effect.
3
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable issues
in this appeal. Appellant’s counsel below argued it would be error for the
juvenile court to order dismissal of the proceedings “unsuccessfully” “ ‘upon
completion of time served.’ ” Even assuming it was improper for the court to
issue that order, the error was harmless. Given appellant’s repeated
violations of probation, including following the date of the challenged order, it
is not reasonably probable the court would have rendered a different order
had it waited a few more months until completion of appellant’s time in
confinement. (People v. Villa (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 443, 453 [describing
harmless error analysis].)
Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental
brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review.
(See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a
supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
SIMONS, Acting P. J.
We concur.
BURNS, J.
CHOU, J.
(A174307)
4