Filed 11/4/26 In re J.P. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C105509
Law.
(Super. Ct. No.
THE PEOPLE, JJC-JV-DE-2023-0000801)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
This appeal arises from a Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 602 proceeding.
The minor, J.P. (minor), appeals the judgment and the jurisdictional findings from his
fourth petition, which resulted in a commitment to juvenile hall for a period of 360 days.
Minor’s appointed counsel asked this court to review the record and determine whether
there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-
443 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to minor, we affirm.
1 Undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In July 2025, minor went to the Manteca Police Department with three other
individuals to file a complaint about an interaction with police officers earlier that day.
According to minor’s mother, the group was pulled over by police officers and “one of
them was slammed at [a store]. The cops didn’t find anything, and the boys were
frustrated so they went to the police department to make a report.”
While the group was in the lobby waiting for someone to take their complaint,
they were disruptive, “banging on the door” and using derogatory terms to the dispatcher.
Officers Antonio Magana and Eric Esparza were dispatched to the lobby to address the
disruption. Officer Magana was one of the officers who interacted with minor and the
other three individuals earlier that day.
When Officer Magana entered the lobby, he told minor to step out of the lobby.
Officer Magana’s body-worn camera recorded minor asking the officer, “What’s up with
you cuz? What are you doing, blood?” Minor also said, “I’ll really do something, bro. I
will tear a [N-word] a block.”
When Officer Esparza arrived in the lobby, minor also said to him, “What’s up
blood? What you trying to do?” Combined with minor’s “fighting stance” Officer
Esparza perceived minor’s conduct as threatening and as “a challenge that he’s willing to
fight.” When another officer, Officer Christopher Stocks, entered the lobby, minor
greeted him the same way. Not long after, Officer Esparza “t[ook] [minor] to the
ground.”
The officers also determined they had probable cause to arrest one of the
individuals with minor. After they arrested that individual, they told minor and the others
not to come back or they would also be arrested. Minor was subsequently arrested.
The prosecution filed a petition under section 602 alleging that minor resisted,
delayed, and obstructed Officer Stocks in discharging his duty. The petition also
declared that minor had no Indian ancestry.
2
Minor denied the allegation at the detention hearing. He was permitted to return
home on continued probation.
A contested jurisdiction and probation violation hearing was held on
December 17, 2025. Both Officer Magana and Officer Esparza testified. After
considering the testimony and reviewing the recordings from the officers’ body‑worn
cameras, the juvenile court issued its ruling on December 19, 2025. The court found true
beyond a reasonable doubt the allegation that minor resisted, delayed, and obstructed the
officers in their attempts to perform their duties in arresting his friend. The court also
found minor violated the terms of his probation “by [violating] not only [Penal Code
section] 148, but by violating Penal Code [s]ection 415, disturbing the peace.” The
maximum term of confinement, including the prior petitions, was three and a half years.
At the disposition hearing on January 6, 2026, the juvenile court ordered minor
continue as a ward of the court and committed him to juvenile hall for 360 days. The
court set a review hearing for a behavioral check and a potential early release for May 6,
2026. Once released, minor would be placed on electronic monitoring for 60 days. The
court also imposed the usual probation terms and conditions.
Minor appeals.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436,
requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. Minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief
within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed,
and we have received no communication from minor.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to minor.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
RENNER, J.
/s/
DAMRELL, J.
4