Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J37943
Richman, J.
Defendant Francisco P. timely appeals from the juvenile court’s November 6, 2007 order declaring him a ward of the court, returning him to his mother’s custody under the supervision of the probation officer, and placing him on probation, after he admitted receiving stolen property. Francisco’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no potentially arguable issues. Counsel has also advised Francisco of his right to file a supplemental brief, which Francisco has not done. We have reviewed the entire record and agree with counsel’s assessment that there is no issue warranting further briefing.
The following facts are from the probation officer’s reports. On September 14, 2007, Omar H. and fourteen-year-old Francisco were in the same high school physical education class. Omar left his expensive prescription glasses near the pool and forgot to retrieve them. Omar later saw Francisco wearing the glasses with the lenses still in them.
Five days later, when the high school’s assistant principal questioned Francisco about the glasses, Francisco denied any knowledge of Omar’s glasses and claimed that he had found some glasses without lenses near a McDonald’s, but did not then have them on his person. After Francisco’s mother told school officials that she had seen Francisco with a pair of glasses without lenses, they searched Francisco’s backpack. There they found Omar’s glasses, without lenses.
Francisco was arrested for possessing stolen property and waived his Miranda rights. He then explained that he got the glasses from Andre S., who had first picked them up. Francisco had playfully taken the glasses from Andre, but intended to return them to him later. At the time Francisco took the glasses, their lenses were already missing. Francisco believed the glasses belonged to Andre and not to Omar. Police attempted to contact Andre, but he was suspended from school.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
On September 20, 2007, the Solano County District Attorney filed a juvenile petition charging Francisco in count one with receiving stolen property on September 19 (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), a felony, and in count two with committing petty theft on August 29 (§ 484, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor. Francisco admitted the receiving stolen property count, which was reduced to a misdemeanor. The petty theft count was dismissed.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
According to one of the probation reports, on August 29, 2007, Francisco and another juvenile shoplifted some clothing from a JC Penny’s department store. Francisco admitted that it was not the first time that he had shoplifted.
According to the probation officer’s reports, Francisco had no prior criminal record, but admitted using drugs, drinking and shoplifting. He denied being a gang member, but admitted having friends who were members of the Sureño gang. He saw these gang members every day after school before he committed the offense at issue, but had not seen them since then. Francisco’s former step-father, with whom he still had a close relationship, had tattoos that identified him as a Norteño gang member. At the time of his arrest for receiving stolen property, Francisco had in his possession a drawing depicting two hands holding a “glock” and simulating a drive-by shooting. He also was found in possession of gang graffiti and other gang-related drawings.
At the November 6, 2007 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court placed him on probation with the conditions recommended in the probation officer’s report. Francisco’s trial counsel objected to the following gang-related terms and conditions of probation on the ground that there was “not a legal nexus for ordering” them because Francisco was not a gang member: “1. Not be present at any known gathering area of Surenos or Nortenos. [¶] 2. Not associate with any known members or associates of any gang. [¶] 3. Not wear any known or identified gang associated clothing or emblems. [¶] 4. Not possess any known or identified gang related paraphernalia, including, but not limited to gang graffiti, symbols, photographs, members rosters or other gang writings, and publications. [¶] . . . [¶] 6. Minor not to be present at any Court proceeding to which the minor is not a party, defendant, or a subpoenaed witness.”
Significantly, the court excluded Francisco’s former step-father from these gang terms due to Francisco’s close relationship with him. Given Francisco’s admitted friendships with gang members and the fact that he was found in possession of gang graffiti and gang-related drawings, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in imposing these gang conditions. (See People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 624, 634-635 [the juvenile court has broad discretion to impose as probation conditions prohibitions against “known” gang-related activities].)
The juvenile court also ordered that Francisco be committed to juvenile hall for three weekends at the probation officer’s discretion. Francisco’s trial counsel objected to this probation condition on the ground that this was Francisco’s first time before the juvenile court. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this condition. (See In re Ricardo M. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 744, 746-747 [the juvenile court has discretion, as a condition of probation, to order a minor to spend a range of time in juvenile hall, leaving the precise term of actual confinement to the probation officer’s discretion].)
Finally, the juvenile court reserved the issue of restitution for a later hearing, if Francisco elected to challenge the amount of restitution. Omar’s father had sought restitution in the amount of $736 based on the cost to him of replacing the glasses.
DISPOSITION
The November 6, 2007 order is affirmed.
We concur: Kline, P. J., Haerle, J.