Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 77405
Sepulveda, J.
The minor C.G. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court and placing him in a private institution. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After review of the record, we find no arguable issues and affirm.
A sixteen count juvenile delinquency petition was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that the minor committed four counts of possessing a destructive device (Pen. Code, § 12303), two counts of carrying an explosive or destructive device in a vehicle for hire (Pen. Code, § 12303.1, subd. (a)), two counts of possessing a destructive device or explosive in a public place (Pen. Code, § 12303.2), four counts of selling or transporting a destructive device (Pen. Code, § 12303.6), and four counts of possessing materials with the intent to make an explosive or destructive device (Pen. Code, § 12312). A contested jurisdictional hearing was conducted, demonstrating the following facts. The allegations of the petition were based upon evidence that came to light after the staff at the Seneca building of San Francisco General Hospital discovered several suspicious notes, in what appeared to be the minor’s handwriting, which connected him with an apparent pipe bomb discovered outside the building on May 22, 2007. Inspector James Ramsey of the San Francisco Police Department contacted the minor’s father and arranged to speak to the minor.
Ramsey spoke with the minor’s father upon arriving at the residence; the minor’s father indicated that the minor had some knowledge about the pipe bomb incident at the hospital. Inspector Ramsey asked the minor if he had any weapons on him and the minor informed Ramsey that he had a pipe bomb. A search of the minor disclosed a 12-inch pipe wrapped in duct tape, with plastic (PVC) caps on both ends. The plastic caps were similar to those on the pipe bomb previously found at the hospital. What appeared to be a fuse, made from twine, was attached at one end. The minor’s father told the officers that there were other materials in his home that were similar to those found in the device in the minor’s possession and gave consent to search the residence. The minor waived his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) and told Inspector Ramsey that he made four devices in total, including the one previously found at the hospital, one “in a safe,” and another also left near the Seneca building of the hospital. He detailed the materials in each device. He explained that he made the bombs as “kind of a false power thing,” and that he had no intention of detonating any of the devices.
A certified explosives expert, Brian Hester, testified for the prosecution. Hester described pipe bombs generally, and specifically testified regarding the various devices that the minor constructed. As to the device recovered initially at the hospital, Hester testified that the device contained match heads confined within a sealed pipe, which could have led to “an overpressure explosion” if ignited. The ignition of this device most likely would have resulted in the “end cap failing, turning into pieces, flying off at high velocity,” rather than the pipe itself exploding. Materials found in the minor’s bedroom pursuant to the consent search of the residence—PVC end caps, matches, pipe, and duct tape—were consistent with the materials used to build this device.
Hester testified that a second device, also located on the hospital grounds after the minor made his statement to Inspector Ramsey, consisted of a nine-inch steel pipe, two PVC end caps, duct tape, and twine. Hester believed the pipe had been filled with match heads before the bomb squad disabled it. There was also a small piece of tissue paper in the pipe; he opined that the entire device would have exploded had the match heads and tissue been ignited. He indicated that the fuses on both of these devices were poorly constructed, however, and would have merely gone out without igniting the contents of the pipes.
The pipe taken from the minor’s person was a 12-inch steel pipe, with PVC end caps, duct tape, and a twine fuse; it also appeared to contain salt, pepper, cooking oil, and small fireworks. Although the fireworks exploded when exposed to an open flame, the fuse of twine again merely self-extinguished after being exposed to an open flame. Materials inside the pipe appeared to “quench[] the flame” when exposed to an open flame. In Hester’s opinion, this device would not have exploded. A fourth device was found by Agent Hester, at a location on San Bruno Avenue. This device contained two steel pipes, PVC end caps, tissue paper and twine, and was held together by duct tape. The device smelled like it contained hair spray or nail polish remover. The connector joining the two pipes was broken and the device therefore did not provide sufficient confinement for an overpressure explosion. No chemically reactive substance was found inside these devices. Hester also inspected various items taken from the minor’s home, including butane. Later tests revealed that the butane evaporated at room temperature.
James Norris, a forensic scientist engaged by the defense, testified that in his opinion none of the pipes used in the four devices would have exploded; at most, the end caps might have shot off.
The juvenile court found that although the minor possessed the materials such as pipes, matches, tissue, butane, twine, firecrackers, etc., with the intent to make an explosive device, he was unable to do so. The court further found that based upon the state of the evidence, “no one knows whether an explosive device could have been created.” The court therefore found the allegations in fifteen of the sixteen counts not true, amended the petition to allege one felony count of attempting to possess materials with the intent to make an explosive or destructive device (Pen. Code, §§ 12312, 664), “because he [the minor] believed that he could cause an explosion with the materials that he had . . . .” The court then ordered the minor’s case transferred to the county of his residence (San Mateo County) for the dispositional hearing. San Mateo County accepted the case and at the dispositional hearing the juvenile court there declared the minor a ward of the court and ordered that he be placed in a private institution. This timely appeal followed.
The juvenile court found that “the evidence merits a single conviction of attempted violation . . . of Penal Code section 12312” as “the possession of [the] materials was one continuous act.”
The minor was represented by counsel and received a fair jurisdictional hearing. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding of attempted possession of materials with the intent to make an explosive or destructive device. There was no error in the disposition. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.
The orders declaring the minor a ward of the court and placing him in a private institution are affirmed.
We concur: Ruvolo, P. J., Rivera, J.