In re M.J. CA1/3

Filed 9/3/20 In re M.J. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re M.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. A159263 ____________________________ THE PEOPLE, (City and County of San Francisco Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. JW196236)

v. M.J. Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant M.J. appeals from a disposition order following the juvenile court’s declaring him a ward of the court and placing him in the custody of probation. He challenges the probation condition that he “[p]articipate fully in any programs of counseling deemed appropriate by [his] probation officer which may include individual, group and family counseling as well as drug counseling, testing and treatment, or any other programs and/or services [he is] referred to by [his] probation officer” (hereinafter also referred to as the program requirement). Appellant contends the program requirement violates the constitutional separation of powers doctrine as it was an improper delegation of judicial authority to probation to determine in the first instance the programs and services he was required to attend. He also

1

raises an ineffective assistance of counsel argument for failure to object to the program requirement. We affirm. BACKGROUND On October 30, 2019,1 the San Francisco County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging the then 16-year-old appellant had committed acts constituting felony second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)). After a contested hearing on November 21, the juvenile court found appellant had committed acts constituting felony second-degree robbery and misdemeanor vandalism. On December 6, appellant appeared with counsel at the disposition hearing. The juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court after finding that his welfare required removal from both his guardian and parents. Appellant was placed in the custody of probation, subject to a maximum commitment period of five years and four months with credit for time served of 39 days. While appellant was eligible for placement in a facility operated by the Department of Juvenile Justice, the juvenile court found an alternative “out-of-home” placement would best meet appellant’s needs if he took advantage of opportunities offered by such a placement. To that end, in its December 6 order, the juvenile court included the program requirement – that appellant was to “[p]articipate fully in any programs of counseling deemed appropriate by [his] probation officer which may include individual, group and family counseling as well as drug counseling, testing and treatment, or any other programs and/or services [he is] referred to by [his] probation officer.” The program