In re J.H. CA4/1

Filed 9/16/25 In re J.H. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re J.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D084449 THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J244278) v.

J.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Maxine M. Hart and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. J.H. (Appellant) admitted to two counts of oral copulation of a child under 14 years old and stipulated to confinement in a secure youth treatment

facility in exchange for the dismissal of additional counts. The juvenile court declared him a ward of the court and imposed a four-year baseline term of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility under Welfare and

Institutions Code section 875, subdivision (b)(1).1 Appellant asserts the juvenile court acted in excess of its jurisdiction under section 607, subdivision (c) by setting a baseline term that put his anticipated release date beyond his 25th birthday. We disagree and affirm the order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because the sole issue on appeal is limited to the impact of the jurisdictional limitations of section 607, subdivision (c) on the juvenile court’s ability to set a baseline term of confinement, and because they involve minors, we provide only a brief overview of the underlying crimes. Appellant sexually molested two victims in two separate incidents that occurred in October and December 2018. At the time of the offenses, Appellant was 16 years old. The victim in the first incident did not know Appellant, and he was not identified at the time of the crime. The second victim identified Appellant when she first reported the crime, but child protective services closed the investigation without any police involvement. Several years later, the police were able to connect DNA evidence found on the first victim’s body to Appellant, leading to his arrest in 2022. Appellant admitted the first incident but denied the second. The police interviewed the second victim, and she provided a statement consistent with her original disclosure. In June 2022, the People alleged that Appellant came within the provisions of section 602. In an amended petition, the People asserted the