In re I.G. CA2/6

Filed 11/24/25 In re I.G. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re I.G., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B341580 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. 24JV00182) Law. (Santa Barbara County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

I.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

I.G., a minor, appeals from the jurisdiction and disposition orders after the juvenile court found that he committed accessory after the fact (Pen. Code, § 32) and declared him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602).1 He contends there was

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the

Welfare & Institutions Code.

insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings. He also contends, and the People concede, that recent amendments to section 730.6 apply retroactively, requiring that the restitution fine imposed by the juvenile court be stricken. We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that appellant committed a violation of Penal Code section 32. However, we agree that section 730.6 applies retroactively. We will therefore strike the restitution fine but affirm the judgment in all other respects. Facts and Procedural Background In February 2024, James Watson, a competitive cyclist, was riding his bicycle on Highway 246 when he was shot multiple times with an airsoft or pellet gun by an occupant in the vehicle driven by appellant. Watson sustained minor injuries and his bicycle was damaged. Santa Barbara County Sherrif’s Deputy Carlos Ochoa- Castaneda investigated the incident. He collected surveillance video near the area around the time of the shooting, which showed a Camry matching Watson’s description. Deputy Ochoa- Castaneda ran the Camry’s license plate and discovered that it was registered to appellant’s father. When Deputy Ochoa- Castaneda contacted the father, he said appellant had been driving the Camry on the day of the incident and provided the deputy with appellant’s phone number. Deputy Ochoa-Casteneda then spoke with appellant. He explained why he was calling, and asked if appellant was “involved” in the incident. Appellant replied, “Yeah. I was driving the car, but that’s all I’ll say.” In April 2024, a Juvenile Wardship Petition (§ 602, subd. (a)) was filed. It alleged that appellant, who was 17-years old at the time, committed the crime of accessory after the fact with