Opinion
A154718
12-19-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE C., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. J3914101)
Minor Jorge C. appeals from an order placing him on probation following his admission of one count of felony robbery. His appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to independently examine the record to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Counsel declares that she wrote to Jorge at his last known address, informing him she was filing a Wende brief on his behalf and apprising him of his right to file a supplemental brief. He has not done so. We have conducted our examination, conclude there are no arguable issues requiring briefing, and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2018, a Modesto police officer responded to a report of a robbery. The victim told the officer that as he was walking home from school, he passed a parked truck with three occupants. One of the occupants—later identified as Jorge—yelled at the victim, " 'You smoke?' " The victim said no and continued walking. Jorge and another male in the truck got out and began following the victim. Jorge then said, " 'Hey, you pack blood,' " and lifted up the right side of his shirt. The victim, who believed the comment was gang related, noticed Jorge kept his right hand over his right pocket, which had a large bulge. Believing the bulge to be a gun, the victim backed away and put his hands in the air. Jorge asked what he had in his pocket, and the victim removed a cell phone, a phone case, and headphones. Jorge took the items, and the victim ran home and called the police.
Meanwhile, a second officer was investigating a report of a male brandishing a firearm from a vehicle that was occupied by several minors. The first officer believed the individuals in that incident were possibly related to the phone theft, so he took the victim of the phone theft to the location of the vehicle. There, the victim identified Jorge as the individual who took his property.
While the officer was interviewing Jorge, who smelled of alcohol and had red, watery eyes, an unsteady walk, and slurred speech, the police received a report of another robbery. Because the description of the perpetrator in that robbery was similar to Jorge, the victim of that robbery was brought to the scene. He positively identified Jorge as the perpetrator. Jorge was booked into the Stanislaus County Juvenile Hall.
We derive the facts surrounding the robberies from the probation report. --------
On February 15, the Stanislaus County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) juvenile wardship petition alleging that Jorge, then 17 years old, committed two counts of felony robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211.
On April 19, Jorge admitted one count of felony robbery, and the second count was dismissed. The Stanislaus County Juvenile Court then ordered the matter transferred out to Sonoma County, where Jorge lived with his mother. On April 26, the Sonoma County Juvenile Court accepted the transfer and referred the matter to the probation department for preparation of a disposition report.
At a May 10 hearing, based on conversations with Jorge and concerns regarding his mental health raised in the disposition report, Jorge's counsel declared a doubt regarding Jorge's competency and requested an evaluation. Agreeing that additional information regarding Jorge's mental health would be beneficial, the court suspended the proceedings and referred him for a psychological evaluation. The court also requested that he be evaluated for the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and PRIDE programs.
Jorge subsequently underwent an examination by a psychologist, who found that he met the criteria of juvenile competency.
At a June 1 hearing, after considering the psychologist's report, the juvenile court found Jorge competent and reinstated the proceedings. It also received an oral report from the probation officer, who advised that Jorge had been accepted into the ACT program, subject to the caveat that if there were "more gang issues than [they were] aware of," he could be moved into the PRIDE program. The court then declared Jorge a ward and ordered him placed on probation in his mother's home, subject to various conditions. He remained detained pending a June 5 hearing for his acceptance into the ACT program.
The June 5 hearing began with the court's observation that Jorge was appearing in handcuffs, which the court found necessary "based upon previous flight attempts, and that he has assaulted staff while in custody." After lengthy discussion regarding the appropriateness of releasing Jorge from custody given these circumstances, the court ordered him released from custody on electronic monitoring, and further ordered him to comply with all referrals made by the probation department and the ACT program.
DISCUSSION
In accordance with our obligations pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record. That review does not disclose any arguable issues requiring briefing. We thus affirm.
/s/_________
Richman, Acting P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Stewart, J. /s/_________
Miller, J.