In re M.S. CA3

Filed 3/8/24 In re M.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re M.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C098657 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV140118)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

M.S. appeals following a 2023 juvenile court disposition order committing him to a secure youth treatment facility. His arguments in this appeal, however, focus on two 2020 disposition orders that he never appealed. We affirm the 2023 order, the only order properly before us, and find M.S.’s failure to timely appeal the 2020 orders deprives us of jurisdiction to revisit those orders here.

1

BACKGROUND In 2019, a juvenile wardship petition was filed against M.S. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,1 alleging that he committed a lewd and lascivious act on a 13-year-old child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) The juvenile court sustained the petition after M.S. admitted to committing a reasonably related offense—a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code former section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) (now Penal Code section 287, subdivision (b)(1)). (Stats. 2018, ch. 423, § 49.) In a 2019 disposition, the court placed M.S. on probation for six months under section 725, subdivision (a) without making him a ward of the court and ordered him to participate in a treatment program on sexual boundaries. (See § 725, subd. (a) [authorizing a juvenile court to place a minor on probation “for a period not to exceed six months” without adjudging the minor a ward of the court].) Two months later, in January 2020, the juvenile court modified its probation conditions after receiving a psychological evaluation and recommendation from the probation officer. The probation officer thought the ordered program on sexual boundaries would be insufficient given M.S.’s alleged conduct, which involved trapping the victim in a bathroom stall, choking her, and requiring her to perform oral sex on him. Believing this conduct required a more involved program, the probation officer recommended that M.S. be ordered to participate in a juvenile sex offender treatment program (JSO program). The juvenile court agreed. It restarted M.S.’s six-month probation term and ordered him to participate in the JSO program. Although defense counsel objected that the JSO program would take 12 to 18 months and so could not be completed in the six-month probation period, the juvenile court indicated the probation period could be extended if M.S. performed well on probation.