In re J.P. CA3

Filed 4/8/16 In re J.P. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C078473 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. 69102)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

1

Minor J.P. appeals following the denial of his request to seal records under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786.1 He contends the juvenile court erred because he satisfactorily completed probation within the meaning of section 786 to trigger the mandatory sealing requirement. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND We dispense with a recitation of the facts because they are unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal. It suffices to say that an amended section 602 petition alleged that J.P. committed two felony acts of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), one felony act of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)), and one misdemeanor act of being an unlicensed driver (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). Following his admission to receiving stolen property, J.P. was adjudged a ward of the court and committed to a juvenile detention center for a period of 90 days. After the completion of his commitment, J.P. was released to the custody of his mother under the supervision of probation. From February 2014 to November 2014, four separate section 777 petitions were filed alleging that J.P. had violated the conditions of his probation. The first petition resulted in a 90-day commitment to a juvenile detention center, the second petition was discharged upon recommendation of the prosecutor, the third petition was suspended after the juvenile court found J.P. legally incompetent under section 709,2 and the fourth petition was suspended pending J.P.’s competency training review.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 Section 709 provides that “[d]uring the pendency of any juvenile proceeding, the minor’s counsel or the court may express a doubt as to the minor’s competency.” (§ 709, subd. (a).) The statute further provides that if the court finds “substantial evidence raises a doubt as to the minor’s competency,” the proceedings must be suspended and the court must order a hearing to determine the minor’s competency. (§ 709, subds. (a), (b).) “If the minor is found to be incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence,” the