In re N.Z. CA2/6

Filed 3/13/23 In re N.Z. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 N.Z., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B319715 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. FJ57544) (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

N.Z. (appellant) is 22 years old. A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleged that he had committed a criminal offense.1 At the jurisdictional hearing appellant admitted the allegation based on the understanding that his offense did not qualify as a section 707, subdivision (b) (707(b))

All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare 1

and Institutions Code.

serious offense. If it did not so qualify, the juvenile court would be required to terminate jurisdiction over appellant because of his age. (§ 607, subd. (a).) The court subsequently learned that the offense qualified as a section 707(b) offense so it could retain jurisdiction over appellant until his 25th birthday. (§ 607, subd. (c).) Therefore, at the dispositional hearing it rejected appellant’s admission. Appellant contends the juvenile court should have accepted the admission and terminated jurisdiction. We disagree and affirm. Procedural History The section 602 petition was filed in August 2021. It alleged that between May 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015, appellant had committed the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child in violation of Penal Code section 288.5. As of May 1, 2012, appellant was 11 years old. In February 2022 when appellant was 21 years old, he admitted the petition’s allegations. Before he entered his admission, the juvenile court stated: “It is the court’s understanding that [appellant] is interested in entering an admission today, a so-called open admission . . . . It is his attorney’s opinion that due to [appellant’s] age that the court will need to terminate jurisdiction upon taking the admission or at the time of disposition by operation of law.” The court said “it would like to continue the disposition . . . for a period of several weeks . . . to order a disposition report that will include . . . the probation department’s formal recommendation regarding the disposition in this case, which may be that due to [appellant’s] age jurisdiction must be terminated.” Appellant’s counsel objected to the ordering of a disposition report because jurisdiction over appellant had “ended at age 21.”