Filed 9/18/26 In re Jordan F. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re JORDAN F., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, F091415
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJD076811)
v.
OPINION
JORDAN F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Silvia J.
Hanna, Judge.
Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
* Before Hill, P. J., Meehan, J. and Sandhu, J.
-ooOoo-
2.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Jordan F., a minor, admitted one count of committing a second degree
robbery and was adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court. He was placed on probation
and the court committed him to the Mid-Term Program and Juvenile Treatment Court.
In this appeal from the disposition hearing, appellate counsel filed a brief that
summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to
independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)
Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2025, a juvenile wardship petition was filed in the Fresno County
Superior Court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, that alleged
appellant (born 2009) committed the following offenses on November 26, 2025: count 1,
second degree robbery of a Smart and Final store (Pen. Code, § 211); and count 2, assault
with a deadly weapon, not a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant was
detained at Fresno County’s Juvenile Justice Campus.
Appellant’s Admission
On February 10, 2026, appellant admitted count 1, second degree robbery. The
trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss count 2, and also dismissed
another pending petition in its entirety. The court found appellant was a minor as
described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and advised appellant that his
maximum term of confinement was three years in the Juvenile Justice Campus or on a
GPS monitor.
Transfer to Tulare County
On February 25, 2026, the probation department moved to transfer appellant to the
Tulare County Superior Court since appellant’s legal residence was in Tulare County.
On February 26, 2026, the Fresno County Superior Court granted the motion and
transferred the case to Tulare County.
3.
On March 2, 2026, the Tulare County Superior Court accepted the transfer of
appellant’s case. The court ordered appellant detained in the Tulare County Juvenile
Detention Facility pending the disposition hearing.
Disposition Hearing
On April 6, 2026, the court held the disposition hearing and adjudged appellant a
ward of the court. The court placed appellant on probation, committed him to the Mid-
Term Program for 365 days and ordered him to comply with the program’s requirements,
and also to participate in Juvenile Treatment Court. The court set a review hearing in 60
days to determine appellant’s progress. The court ordered appellant to stay at least 100
yards away from the Smart and Final store, and left open restitution in an amount to be
determined.
On the same day, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. (See In re
Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 118–119 [Wende procedures apply to a minor’s
appeal from the judgment in a juvenile delinquency proceeding].) The brief also included
counsel’s declaration indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief
with this court. By letter on June 29, 2026, we invited appellant to submit additional
briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable
factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4.