In re Jose C. CA1/3

Filed 2/28/25 In re Jose C. CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re JOSE C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A169122 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1900972) JOSE C., Defendant and Appellant.

In April 2021, Jose C. was adjudged an indefinite ward of the juvenile court for committing murder. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated.) Jose was committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for 15 years. Due to the closure of the DJJ in 2023, the court held another disposition hearing and committed Jose to the Briones Youth Academy Secure Pathway. Jose appeals the 2023 order, contending the juvenile court erred by setting a baseline term of confinement for Jose’s murder offense at six years, 11 months, beginning on the date Jose arrived at the DJJ. (See § 875, subd. (b) (§ 875(b)).) Seeking remand and a new disposition hearing, Jose posits that this baseline exceeds the term allowed by law. We affirm the order.

1

BACKGROUND Wardship Petition and Original Disposition On November 8, 2019, the District Attorney filed a petition alleging Jose came within the juvenile court’s wardship jurisdiction due to his commission of two felonies: murder with malice aforethought (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)); and attempted second degree robbery (id. at §§ 211 & 212.5, subd. (c)). The petition contained enhancement allegations for felony murder (id. at § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and use of a firearm causing great bodily injury (id. at §§ 12022.53, 246, 12034, subds. (c)–(d)). The petition was accompanied by a motion to transfer Jose’s case to adult court. Facts supporting the petition are set forth in a prior opinion by this court, In re Jose C. (Apr. 3, 2023, A165110) [nonpub. opn.] (Jose I),1 but a brief summary suffices here. On November 5, 2019, two teenagers, David and Alicia, were shot while attempting to sell a $10 roll of marijuana to a person named Juju, who arrived at the agreed location with Jose. (Jose I, at pp. 2–3.) David survived but Alicia died from her injury. David reported that he knew Jose from school and that both assailants were friends with another juvenile named Jade, who used to be close with Alicia before they had a falling out. (Id. at p. 2.) In the aftermath of the shooting, Jose incriminated himself in text messages that he sent to Jade, which she shared with police. (Id. at pp. 3–4.) Jade reported that Jose admitted to her that he shot the victims and hid the gun in a vent at his grandmother’s house. (Id. at pp. 4, 6.) Jose, who had connections to the Norteño street gang, made additional incriminating statements during a police interview, although he denied being