From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Giovanni S.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Apr 29, 2009
No. A123000 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2009)

Opinion


In re GIOVANNI S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GIOVANNI S., Defendant and Appellant. A123000 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division April 29, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 76710

SIMONS, J.

Defendant Giovanni S., born February 1992, appeals orders of the juvenile court declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and ordering his out-of-home placement after he admitted possession of a switchblade knife (Pen. Code, § 653k). His counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has informed his client in writing that a Wende brief was being filed and that defendant had the right to personally file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. No supplemental brief has been filed.

Allegations that defendant possessed a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)) and violated his probation were dismissed.

BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2008, the subject Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging defendant’s September 13 possession of a dirk/dagger and possession of a switchblade knife. On September 16, the probation department filed a notice charging defendant with violating his probation, which began on April 19, 2007.

On September 18, 2008, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by police without a warrant on September 13. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1.) The following evidence was adduced at the suppression hearing:

At 5:40 p.m. on September 13, 2008, San Bruno Police Officer Ruocco saw five Hispanic males walking in a department store parking lot wearing Norteño gang-related colors. One of the males, Jorge Moreno, had a “Huelga bird,” a Norteño gang symbol, tattooed on his neck. Based on his training and experience, Ruocco immediately suspected them of being gang members based on their clothing and tattoos, and their being together as a group.

Ruocco stopped his patrol car alongside the group and asked, “Are you guys heading back to South City?” Ruocco then got out of the patrol car and saw one of the group start to walk away from him and someone bend down behind the group. He then saw an unopened can of beer in close proximity behind the group. Ruocco believed that a couple of the males were under 21 and may have possessed the beer, so he decided to investigate further.

Ruocco advised the group they were not free to leave until he could determine who possessed the can of beer and obtained everyone’s identification. Ruocco requested backup officers and two backup officers arrived. After obtaining the individuals’ names and dates of birth, the officers conducted records checks and “probation and/or parole searches as well as pat searches” of each individual. Ruocco said it was common practice when contacting suspected gang members, to conduct a pat search for weapons since based on his training and experience, gang members normally carry weapons on their person.

Ruocco searched Moreno first at approximately 5:44 p.m. At 5:49 p.m. Ruocco obtained the information that defendant was on probation and subject to search and seizure. Ruocco then performed the probation search of defendant and found a switchblade knife in defendant’s front pants pocket.

Defense counsel argued that Ruocco’s initial detention of defendant based on defendant’s possible possession of the beer can was unjustified. Counsel also argued that the detention was prolonged. In denying the suppression motion the court properly determined the detention was reasonable because the individuals appeared to be under the age of 21. The court also properly determined that the length of the detention was not excessive.

The probation report stated that prior to the instant incident, defendant was doing well in the drug court program. However, the report recommended defendant be placed at Camp Glenwood based on the current charges, and that defendant had “entrenched himself back into the gang lifestyle,” despite the efforts of his parents to help him refrain from such activities.

At the disposition hearing, the court properly advised defendant of his rights before his admitted possession of the switchblade knife. The court properly rejected defendant’s request to remain in the drug court program and imposed the Camp Glenwood placement.

Defendant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, and appeared at every hearing. We conclude there are no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

We concur. JONES, P.J., NEEDHAM, J.


Summaries of

In re Giovanni S.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Apr 29, 2009
No. A123000 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2009)
Case details for

In re Giovanni S.

Case Details

Full title:In re GIOVANNI S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE…

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Date published: Apr 29, 2009

Citations

No. A123000 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2009)