Opinion
A156310
10-25-2019
In re M. M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M. M., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J43616)
M.M. appeals from a dispositional order committing him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (Division) after he admitted committing second degree robbery. Assigned appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues, and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A.
In 2014, M.M. appeared in Napa County juvenile delinquency court several times for theft, assault, possession of a weapon, marijuana possession, and probation violations. After a referral of physical abuse, M.M.'s case was transferred to dependency court and he was placed in foster care. He returned home in July 2015. Three months later, he argued with his mother and, when police arrived, threatened an officer. M.M. admitted threatening a public officer (Pen. Code, § 71), a misdemeanor, and the juvenile court took jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. M.M. failed to appear at his disposition hearing, ran away from home, and stopped attending school. A warrant issued for his arrest.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
In 2016, 15-year-old M.M. was observed riding a stolen dirt bike, fleeing from police, and discarding a handgun. The Solano County District Attorney filed a wardship petition alleging felony receipt of a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a minor (§ 29610). He admitted the first count, which was reduced to a misdemeanor, and the second count was dismissed. M.M. was declared a ward of the court and was placed on probation with wraparound services.
In 2017, police responded to reports of shots fired in a high school parking lot. A school employee identified M.M. as one of the shooters. The Solano County District Attorney filed a wardship petition alleging M.M. possessed and discharged a firearm in a school zone (§ 626.9, subds. (b), (d)) and drove without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). M.M. admitted the discharge offense (a felony) and the other counts were dismissed.
Before disposition on the discharge offense, M.M. and an associate assaulted another ward in juvenile hall, dislocating the victim's shoulder. M.M. was charged with felony assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). He admitted the battery and the assault charge was dismissed. He was continued as a ward and placed at Challenge Academy. M.M. completed its program in January 2018.
Two months after returning home on probation, M.M. was observed driving a stolen car and another wardship petition was filed, alleging M.M. unlawfully drove or took a vehicle not his own (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). He pled no contest to an amended misdemeanor charge of driving without a license. He was continued on wardship probation and placed in his mother's custody, conditioned on serving 26 days in juvenile hall.
About seven months later, M.M. was attending school and seeking employment. He successfully completed probation and juvenile delinquency jurisdiction was terminated.
B.
Twenty-four days later, two men were shooting a video when four males pulled up in a car, grabbed their cameras (worth $4,400), and drove away. At least one suspect brandished a gun and at least two threatened to shoot if the victims did not comply. Police located the car involved in the robbery and found M.M. and a loaded revolver inside. A victim identified M.M. as having grabbed one camera and instructed an accomplice to grab the other.
The Solano County District Attorney filed a petition alleging M.M. committed two felony counts of second-degree robbery (§ 211). While represented by counsel, and after waiving his constitutional rights and being advised that he faced up to five years of confinement on disposition, M.M. admitted one count. The juvenile court accepted his admission and dismissed the second count with "comment and restitution."
M.M. sought probation and return to Challenge Academy. In his probation interview, he denied involvement in the robbery. In order to provide M.M. with appropriate programming and a secure commitment, the probation department recommended he be committed to the Division. The probation officer reported M.M. presented a "high risk" to reoffend and that Challenge Academy would be inappropriate, considering the gravity of his most recent offense, the threat he presented to public safety, and his history of unsuccessful interventions with less restrictive alternatives. M.M. had also recently completed high school and turned 18. The probation officer opined M.M.'s needs could be appropriately addressed at the Division, via apprenticeship programs or college coursework, mental health counseling, gang intervention, victim awareness, and re-entry planning.
After a contested disposition hearing, the court declared M.M. a ward of the court, found it probable he would benefit from the programs available at the Division, and committed him to the Division for a maximum period of three years with 61 days credit for time served at juvenile hall. The juvenile court imposed a $100 restitution fine and victim restitution in an amount to be determined.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel has filed a Wende brief raising no issues, M.M. has been advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, and M.M. has not filed such a brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and identified no arguable issues.
M.M. was at all times adequately represented by counsel. He freely and voluntarily admitted the robbery allegation after waiving his constitutional rights. He also was properly advised, before he made that admission, that he faced up to five years of confinement (§§ 212.5, subd. (c), 213, subd. (a)(2); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (c)) and would be prohibited from owning firearms until age 30. (§ 29820, subd. (b); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (b)(3).)
At the contested disposition hearing, M.M. was afforded the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine the probation officer. The juvenile court's decision to commit M.M. to the Division was an authorized disposition (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 731, subd. (a)(4), 733, 707, subd. (b)(3)) and is not an abuse of discretion considering M.M.'s extensive criminal history and failed attempts at rehabilitation in less restrictive alternatives. The juvenile court also found commitment to DJJ would be of probable benefit to M.M. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 734), a finding supported by substantial evidence. (See In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 12.)
The juvenile court properly identified five years as the lengthiest term an adult would serve for second degree robbery and set a lesser maximum term of confinement for M.M. (§§ 212.5, subd. (c), 213, subd. (a)(2); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (c).) The court also made the required findings before removing M.M. from his mother's custody (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (a)(3)), imposed an authorized restitution fine (id., § 730.6, subd. (b)(1)), and awarded proper custody credits. (In re J.M. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1256.)
We have identified no issues that require briefing.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
/s/_________
BURNS, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
SIMONS, Acting P. J. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J.