In re J.P. CA1/1

Filed 10/13/25 In re J.P. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172680 v. J.P., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J25-0070) Defendant and Appellant.

After J.P. (the minor) filed a notice of appeal challenging the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, minor’s counsel identified no issues for appeal and asked this court to perform its own review of the record for possible issues. After conducting a review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende), we find no arguable issues and affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History On January 3, 2025, the People filed a wardship petition charging the minor with five firearm offenses.1 A motion to suppress evidence was heard and denied on January 13, 2025. A few days later, the minor admitted count two, felony concealment of a firearm in violation of section 25400, subdivision (a)(2). The remaining counts were dismissed. The court released the minor from custody to home detention and transferred the case to Contra Costa County for a disposition hearing. In January 2025, the juvenile court in Contra Costa County accepted transfer of the case and determined there was no reason to believe the minor is covered by the Indian Child Welfare Act. The minor was placed on electronic monitoring. At the March 2025, disposition hearing, the court adjudged the minor to be a ward of court, and issued a placement order with conditions of probation. The minor’s school district was notified of the adjudication and wardship probation. After the disposition hearing, the minor filed this appeal challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Welfare and Institutions

1 Throughout this opinion, undesignated statutory references are to the