In re T.F.-A. CA1/4

Filed 8/30/24 In re T.F.-A. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re T. F.-A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170288

v. (Solano County Super. Ct. T. F.-A., No. J45719) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant T. F.-A. (Minor) appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order, contending the court erred in committing him to the county juvenile detention facility (JDF) as opposed to sending him to a short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP). Minor’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) summarizing the facts and procedural history and requesting this court to independently review the record for potential errors. Counsel advised Minor that he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wished to call to this court’s attention, but

1

Minor has not done so. Finding no arguable issues on appeal, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Petition and Transfer In 2024, the San Francisco District Attorney (District Attorney) filed three juvenile wardship petitions — on January 10, January 16, and January 18 — pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602, subdivision (a). The petitions and allegations arose from one completed carjacking and two attempted carjackings, all of which occurred on January 8, 2024, and each of which involved a different victim. On January 18, 2024, Minor admitted to carjacking as alleged in the January 10 petition and attempted carjacking as alleged in the January 16 petition. The matter was then transferred to Solano County for disposition, as Minor had a prior case on which he was on probation in that county. II. Juvenile Court Disposition A contested disposition hearing was held on February 13, 2024. Minor’s counsel argued that a STRTP would be a better placement option for Minor, noting that the “staff [is] trained to work with high-risk youth and high-needs youth” to “address [ ] the many things [Minor will] need,” and contrasting STRTP’s therapeutic focus with JDF’s punitive emphasis. On the other hand, the probation officer, who prepared the social study and sentencing recommendation pursuant to section