Filed 6/29/26 In re Keith F. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re KEITH F., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
E086655
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. J302772)
v.
OPINION
KEITH F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Candice Garcia-
Rodrigo, Judge. Affirmed.
Jake E. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Keith F. appeals from the juvenile court’s order entered on July 1, 2025, placing
him in the probation officer’s custody in juvenile hall pending his placement in foster
1
care. We appointed counsel to represent Keith on appeal, and counsel filed an opening
brief that raised no issues and requested an independent review of the record under
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In November 2024, the People filed a petition under subdivision (a) of Welfare and
Institutions Code section 602. The petition alleged that Keith committed attempted
second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211; unlabeled statutory citations refer to
this code.) The following month, Keith admitted the allegation. The trial court adjudged
him a ward of the court and placed him on probation in his father’s custody in Nevada.
In February 2025, the People filed another petition under subdivision (a) of section
602, alleging that Keith violated the terms of his probation by “le[aving] his residence
without permission in Nevada and fle[eing] to California where he was arrested on
February 21, 2025 in San Bernardino.” Keith admitted the violation, and the court
ordered that he remain detained in juvenile hall pending further hearing. At the continued
disposition hearing in March 2025, the court ordered Keith released from juvenile hall
and placed him on probation in his mother’s custody.
In May 2025, the People filed a subsequent petition under subdivision (a) of
section 602 charging Keith with attempted carjacking (§§ 664, 215, subd. (a)), reckless
driving while fleeing law enforcement (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), possession of a
2
firearm by a minor (§ 29610), and driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh.
Code, § 10851, subd. (a)).
At the detention hearing on the subsequent petition, Keith denied the allegations,
and the court ordered that he remain detained in juvenile hall. At a pretrial hearing on
May 21, 2025, Keith admitted the reckless driving and firearm possession counts, and the
court dismissed the remaining counts. The court ordered that Keith be released to his
mother with GPS monitoring, and the court set June 13, 2025, as the release date.
On the scheduled release date, Keith’s mother did not pick him up from juvenile
hall. The probation officer contacted the mother, and she said that “‘she works 3rd shift
and she can’t stay home and watch him.’” The probation officer also contacted the San
Bernardino County Department of Children and Family Services (CFS), and the social
worker said that because Keith was an “active ward of the Court,” CFS would not take
him.
At a hearing four days later, the court continued the matter for two weeks to allow
the probation department to contact Keith’s mother again to clear up any
miscommunication. That day, the probation officer spoke to the mother, and she said that
she “‘did not want the youth.’” The probation officer unsuccessfully tried to find other
relatives available to take custody of Keith.
On June 27, 2025, the probation department filed a memorandum asking the court
to order that Keith remain in juvenile hall pending placement in a suitable foster care
facility.
3
The court held a further hearing on July 1, 2025. The court explained that it
“lack[ed] the authority to compel [CFS] to pick up the youth from juvenile hall because
we are a single status jurisdiction.” Keith’s counsel objected, arguing that Keith had
“spent 15 or 16 days sitting in juvenile hall instead of being released,” which “was the
original agreement.” Counsel asked the court either to order CFS to take custody of
Keith or to dismiss the petition and release Keith to CFS. The court denied the requests,
and it ordered that Keith remain in juvenile hall pending placement.
DISCUSSION
Keith’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief identifying two potentially arguable
issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion by “refusing to dismiss the petition and
order Children and Family Services take [Keith] pursuant to Welfare and Institutions
Code section 241.1” and (2) whether the probation term “that requires [Keith] to ‘obey
[his] parents, guardians, teachers, school officials, and probation officer, and cooperate in
a plan of rehabilitation’ is unconstitutionally vague.” Counsel asked that we conduct an
independent review of the record. We advised Keith that he had 30 days to file a personal
supplemental brief, and we received no response.
We have independently reviewed the record and found no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to Keith. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
pp. 441-442.) Accordingly, we affirm the court’s July 1, 2025, order.
4
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s July 1, 2025, order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
LEE
J.
5
