In re J.F. CA3

Filed 12/23/14 In re J.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re J.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C075394 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV134451)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

At a May 2013 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on the original Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, the juvenile court sustained the allegation that the minor J.F. had committed felony burglary of “an inhabited dwelling” and granted supervised felony probation subject to numerous conditions including DNA testing. In

1

November 2013, the minor admitted violating probation (he was suspended from school) and the juvenile court revoked and reinstated probation. The minor appeals. In his notice of appeal, the minor states that he is appealing from the November 2013 order but raises issues which should have been raised in an appeal from the May 2013 order. The minor contends the juvenile court failed to designate the degree of the burglary (which would have occurred at the May 2013 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing), requiring that the offense be designated second degree and remand for the court to correct the maximum confinement time and to consider whether the second degree burglary should be a felony or a misdemeanor. Assuming the burglary is deemed a misdemeanor, the minor contends the condition requiring he provide a DNA sample should be stricken. The minor also contended that he was entitled to additional predisposition custody credits but the juvenile court amended the credits subsequent to the minor’s filing of his opening brief pursuant to the minor’s request. No further action is required as to that contention. We requested supplemental briefing, asking the parties to discuss “whether the minor’s current appeal from a November 2013 order should be dismissed because it raises issues (designation of the degree of offense, probation condition requiring a DNA sample) that should have been raised in an appeal from the May 22, 2013 jurisdictional/dispositional order, revoking deferred entry of judgment, vacating previous dispositional orders, adjudicating the minor as a ward, and granting supervised probation subject to certain terms and conditions.” Having considered the supplemental briefing received from the parties, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction to resolve the minor’s contention with respect to the degree of his offense which should have been decided at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing in May 2013 or his contention with respect to the order he submit to DNA testing which was imposed as a condition of probation in May 2013. Because the minor raises