Filed 8/12/26 In re S.Z. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re S.Z., a Person Coming Under the H053563
Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. 25JV47094C)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
S.Z.,
Defendant and Appellant.
In December 2024, S.Z. threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend J.P., who obtained a
protective order against him. Six months later, S.Z. confronted J.P. outside her home and
was charged in a juvenile wardship petition with, among other things, knowingly
violating the protective order. After a trial, the juvenile court adjudged S.Z. a ward of the
court and placed him on probation.
S.Z. appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed an
opening brief stating the case and the facts, but raising no issues. We advised S.Z. of his
right to file written argument on his own behalf but received no response.
We have reviewed the full appellate record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly).) In light of
this review, we requested supplemental briefing concerning the dispositional minute
order, which the Attorney General conceded mistakenly specified a maximum time of
confinement. As explained below, we accept that concession. Otherwise, we find no
arguable issue for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, but direct the trial court
to prepare an amended dispositional minute order.
I. BACKGROUND
At some point, S.Z. had a dating relationship with another minor, J.P. J.P. ended
the relationship around December 2024, but S.Z. adamantly objected.
A. The First Petition (Case No. 25JV47094A)
On December 16, 2024, J.P. reported two threatening incidents to police. Two
days earlier S.Z. had sent her a text message stating, “I’m going to kill you.” The next
day, J.P.’s mother encountered S.Z. at her family’s apartment complex peering through
windows, and although he eventually left at the mother’s urging, S.Z. later texted J.P. that
he would sleep outside the apartment complex and wait for her.
Several weeks later, S.Z. was arrested on unrelated charges for possessing a
concealed firearm as a minor. A juvenile wardship petition was filed, joining a stalking
charge arising from the first incident with firearms charges from the incident several
weeks later, and S.Z. was released a few days afterwards subject to court orders to have
no contact with J.P. and to possess no firearms.
B. The Second Petition (Case No. 25JV47094B)
After several weeks on release, S.Z. was arrested again for grossly negligent
firearm discharge, and a second juvenile wardship petition was filed against him. After
his arrest in connection with this charge, S.Z. spent nearly two months in custody. Then,
as part of an agreement with the prosecution, S.Z. admitted the allegations in the first
petition, and the court dismissed the second one.
2
C. The Third Petition (Case No. 25JV47094C)
Within a month of S.Z.’s release from custody in connection with the negligent
discharge petition, he committed the offense that gave rise to the third juvenile wardship
petition and the proceedings at issue in this appeal.
1. The June 2025 Incident
On the evening of June 11, 2025, S.Z. accosted J.P. near her apartment. He was
accompanied by some of his friends in a nearby vehicle, and he confronted J.P. about
seeing another young man and asked her who she was seeing. J.P. rebuffed S.Z., and he
became more aggressive. However, when one of S.Z.’s friends told him to get in the car
and told J.P. to go upstairs, both complied, and the incident ended. About an hour later,
police arrested S.Z. for violating the restraining order.
2. The Allegations
The next day, the district attorney filed the third petition, which later was amended
to allege S.Z. committed (1) stalking in violation of a restraining order (Pen. Code,
§ 646.9, subd. (b)) and (2) violation of a protective order (id., § 273.65, subd. (a)).
(Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)
3. The Jurisdictional Hearing
At a contested jurisdictional hearing on the third petition, J.P. and her mother
testified. J.P. described the incident and testified that, near the end of the confrontation,
she asked if S.Z. was going to hit her “because he’s known for doing that.” Her mother
described calling the police after J.P. related that S.Z. had confronted her. She watched
S.Z. drive away slowly, and just after the incident J.P. repeatedly told her in a state of
high distress that “[h]e’s going to kill me.” The prosecution argued that, even in the
absence of an overt threat from S.Z., his conduct satisfied the requirements for stalking
because he posed a credible threat to J.P. and his behavior caused credible fear because it
“revealed an obsession that a reasonable person would understand is threatening.” (See
3
§ 646.9, subd. (a) [requiring “a credible threat with the intent to place [the victim] in
reasonable fear”].)
The juvenile court sustained the allegation of violating a protective order.
However, the court found that the stalking allegation had not been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt because there was insufficient evidence that S.Z. had made a credible
threat with intent to induce fear in J.P., and therefore it dismissed that count.
D. The Disposition
In a joint disposition hearing for the first and third juvenile wardship petitions, the
juvenile court placed S.Z. on probation for three years pursuant to section 1203.097. The
probation terms omitted fines or other assessments, but included standard conditions such
as parental custody with probation officer supervision along with a renewed no-contact
order for J.P., an additional order to stay 100 yards away from her residence, and an order
to complete a 26-week domestic violence prevention course.
The court also stated that the maximum time of confinement in the case would
have been two years, eight months, and this figure was included in the dispositional
minute order.
S.Z. filed a timely notice of appeal in the case involving the third petition.
II. DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Kelly,
supra, 40 Cal.4th 106. We find one issue for appeal.
The first page of the dispositional minute order specifies a maximum time of
confinement: “Max time: 2 years, 8 months.” As the Attorney General acknowledges,
because the trial court did not remove S.Z. from the custody of his parents and instead
ordered him “returned to the custody of the parent on Probation,” the dispositional minute
order should not have specified the maximum time of confinement. (See Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 726, subd. (d)(1) [requiring wardship orders to specify the maximum time of
4
confinement “[i]f the minor is removed from the physical custody of the minor’s parent
or guardian”]; see also In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1129 [where juvenile not
removed from parental custody, the “court was not called upon to specify any maximum
term of confinement”]; In re P.A. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 32 [“the court must . . .
decline to state any term of confinement . . . if the minor is not removed from his parents’
custody”].) Accordingly, the dispositional minute order must be amended to strike the
provision purporting to set a maximum confinement time. (See In re A.C. (2014) 224
Cal.App.4th 590, 592.)
Otherwise, we find no arguable issue on appeal and therefore conclude that
appellate counsel has complied fully with her responsibilities. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
at p. 441.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended
dispositional minute order striking the term “Max time: 2 years, 8 months.”
5
____________________________
BROMBERG, J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
LIE, ACTING P. J.
____________________________________
WILSON, J.
People v. S.Z.
H053563
