In J.J.
Filed 10/27/09 In J.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re J.J., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.J., Defendant and Appellant. | F057140 (Super. Ct. No. 06CEJ601015-2) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Martin Suits, Commissioner.
Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Lloyd G. Carter, and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
On October 24, 2008, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging appellant, J.J., committed misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)). On January 20, 2009, the juvenile court found the allegation true at the conclusion of a contested jurisdiction hearing. On February 11, 2009, the juvenile court found J.J. to be a ward of the court, removed him from his parents custody, placed him on probation, gave him credit for one day in custody, ordered him to complete 75 hours of community service, placed him on electronic monitoring for 60 days, and placed him on probation upon various terms and conditions.
On appeal, J.J. originally contended the juvenile court inconsistently ordered his removal from his parents home, but then ordered that he reside with his parents. J.J. argued the juvenile court erred in setting his maximum term of confinement because he was placed with his parents. J.J. contended the courts minute order, that as a condition of probation he was not to use or possess drugs, was inconsistent with the courts oral pronouncement.
According to the record, J.J. turned 18 years old on May 20, 2009. This court sent a letter to the parties, pursuant to Government Code section 68081, asking the parties to brief the issue of whether the first contention concerning appellants placement with his parents was moot because he had already turned 18. Both parties replied with letter briefs conceding the issue was moot.[1] J.J.s counsel further noted in her letter that his probation ended on August 11, 2009, and the juvenile court terminated probation and jurisdiction over him.[2] Appellant requests that we dismiss his appeal. We will grant his request.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is hereby dismissed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
[1] Respondent cited to authority stating that if an issue is moot but capable of evading review, this court can still address it. We do not find the issue of dual or joint custody by the probation department and a minors parents is confined only to juveniles about to turn 18. We therefore decline respondents invitation to address the merits of the first issue raised in appellants original opening brief.
[2] The juvenile courts jurisdiction was scheduled to end with the termination of appellants probation on August 11, 2009.
