Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. FJ44497, Shep Zebberman, Juvenile Court Referee.
Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CROSKEY, J.
Francisco P. appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered by reason of his having been a minor in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (a)) in furtherance of gang activity (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The juvenile court ordered Francisco P. to be confined to camp for a maximum term of seven years, eight months. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts.
At approximately 1:40 p.m. on May 5, 2009, Los Angeles Police Officer Jason Malik and his partner, Officer Urrutia, were driving a “dual purpose plain car” in the vicinity of 49th Street and San Pedro Street in the City of Los Angeles. As they drove by, Malik observed Francisco P. standing on the sidewalk in front of the gate to the apartment building at 447 West 49th Street. Francisco P. was standing immediately behind a blue Dodge van parked facing west on the street.
A “dual purpose plain car” has no markings on it, but has a forward-facing red light with a siren.
Officer Urrutia informed Malik, who was driving the car, that he previously had arrested Francisco P. Given that information, Malik decided to stop and investigate. When he stopped the car, Malik and Urrutia were in front of the van and there were no cars obstructing their view of Francisco P., who was standing approximately 20 to 25 feet away. As he parked, Malik observed Francisco P. take a couple of steps, then reach under his T-shirt into his front waistband, remove a blue steel revolver and “toss it to the dirt.” Francisco P. then turned and began to walk away from the officers.
Both officers got out of the patrol car. There was no one else in the area and no other objects or debris in the dirt. While Urrutia detained Francisco P., Malik retrieved the gun from the patch of dirt in front of the apartment building. Malik opened the cylinder and removed one.22 caliber bullet from the gun, an “R.G. model 66 [five shot] revolver.” As Malik was handling the gun, Francisco P. spontaneously said, “ ‘What the fuck? That’s not my gun.’ ” Francisco P. then asked the officer, “ ‘Didn’t you see the other homie run away?’ ” Malik responded, “ ‘No, I saw you drop it.’ ” Francisco P. then stated, “ ‘Fuck it then. If I have to take it for the neighborhood, then I will.’ ”
Los Angeles Police Officer Jesse Drenckhahn is assigned to the gang enforcement unit with the Newton Division of the Los Angeles Police Department. He was specifically assigned to monitor “[t]he Playboys Gang, which is a predominantly Hispanic criminal street gang, the 5-Duece Broadway Gangster Crips, [the] 5-Trey Avalon Gangster Crips, [the] East Coast Gangster Crips, [and] a couple more [gangs] scattered about.” With regard to the Playboys gang, Drenckhahn had had “[e]asily over a hundred” contacts with its members. The gang’s territory extends from Vernon on the north to Slauson on the south. The gang’s west side boundary is Grand Avenue and it is bordered on the east side by Central.
A younger member of the gang can gain “gang status” by committing crimes on behalf of the gang. According to Officer Drenckhahn, juvenile gang members commonly start “with simple vandalisms, writing the name of their gang within the gang’s territory or branch out into what they consider the enemy’s territory....” The officer continued, “Then they’ll graduate into other things, anything from narcotics sales to weapons violations all the way up to homicides.” With regard to weapons, Drenckhahn indicated that guns are typically shared between gang members. Although one member may be in charge of keeping the weapon, it may be used by different gang members at different times. The officer stated that “[t]ypically, gangs utilize the younger members to hold their guns ‘cause older members tend to be either on probation or parole; so they know that the juvenile justice system is more forgiving as opposed to an adult offender being caught with a gun.” As to members of the Playboys gang, the unlawful possession of a firearm is a common crime.
Drenckhahn had had numerous contacts with Francisco P. On October 24, 2008, he had arrested Francisco P. for vandalism and, since that time, had seen him on a number of occasions. During one encounter, Francisco P. admitted he was a member of the 51st Street Clique of the Eastside Playboys and that his moniker was Darky.
Officer Dreckhahn was convinced that the actions taken on the part of Francisco P. were for the benefit of a criminal street gang. He based his opinion on several factors. Initially, the area of Francisco P.’s arrest was “within the stronghold of [the] Newton Division where the Playboys typically congregate.” In addition, the officer noted that Francisco P., as a younger member of the gang, was trying to elevate his status within the gang by “committing crimes or showing [his] allegiance to the gang by [his] willingness to commit crimes and carry firearms.” The officer believed that Francisco P. was “on 49th Street that day with [the] firearm in order to protect his gang[‘s] territory.” He was prepared to “aggressively confront” any enemy gang members who might enter that territory. The fact that he was carrying a loaded gun indicated that he was willing to “engage a threat or perceived threat.” Francisco P.’s statement that he was willing to “ ‘take it for the neighborhood’ ” showed “his allegiance... and dedication to the gang” and his “willingness to commit crimes on their behalf.” Moreover, carrying a loaded firearm elevated Francisco P.’s status within the gang; it indicated that he was willing to “put in work” or commit crimes for the gang. In particular, by carrying a loaded firearm Francisco P. was showing that he was willing to “carry out whatever consequences [might occur, including]... murder if he’s confronted by a rival gang” member.
2. Procedural History.
In a petition filed on May 7, 2009 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, Francisco P. was charged with possession of a firearm by a minor in violation of Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a)(1). It was further alleged pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A) that he possessed the weapon “for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further and assist in criminal conduct by gang members.” It was noted that “[s]aid act also caused the above offense to become a serious felony pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.7[,] [subdivision] (c)(28).”
Following a hearing on the matter, the juvenile court found the allegations true and committed Francisco P. to camp for three years for his possession of a firearm and an additional four years for the finding that he possessed it in association with a criminal street gang. Francisco P. had an additional eight months remaining from a prior petition. Accordingly, he was ordered to serve a maximum term of confinement of seven years, eight months. Upon his release from confinement, Francisco P. is to register with local law enforcement as a gang member in the county in which he is residing (Pen. Code, § 186.32). Francisco P. was awarded 56 days of pre-commitment custody credit and was given a date of June 9, 2010 for an annual review.
Francisco P. filed a timely notice of appeal on June 15, 2009.
This court appointed counsel to represent Francisco P. on appeal on August 25, 2009.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
By notice filed December 9, 2009, the clerk of this court advised Francisco P. to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
REVIEW ON APPEAL
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed.
We concur: KLEIN, P. J., ALDRICH, J.