From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Randolph M.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Mar 25, 2008
No. A119269 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)

Opinion


In re RANDOLPH M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDOLPH M., Defendant and Appellant. A119269 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division March 25, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Solano County Super. Ct. No. J36852

Jones, P.J.

Randolph M. appeals from a disposition entered after a juvenile court found true an allegation that he had brandished an imitation firearm. (Pen. Code, § 417.4.) His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.

Unless otherwise indicated, all further section references will be to the Penal Code.

On August 21, 2006, Stephan Masih was working at a UPS store in Fairfield. Just before noon, Masih looked outside the store and saw appellant sitting astride a bike. He was wearing a mask and had a silver gun in his hand. Appellant pointed his gun at Masih. Masih hit a panic button and ducked behind a counter. The sound of the alarm was audible to appellant and he never tried to enter the store. Instead, appellant fired his weapon five times and then left.

A police officer who responded to the alarm found appellant riding his bike nearby. Appellant had in his possession, a ski mask with eye holes cut into it, and a large silver cap gun. The gun was so realistic that the officer would have believed it was real if he had been confronted with it on the street.

Based on these facts, a petition was filed alleging appellant came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he had committed an attempted second degree robbery. (§§ 211, 212.5, 664.) Subsequently, the petition was amended to include an allegation that appellant had brandished an imitation firearm.

The case proceeded to a jurisdictional hearing where the prosecutor presented the evidence we have set forth above. At the conclusion of the prosecutor’s case, the court granted a defense motion to dismiss the attempted second degree robbery allegation because appellant had never tried to enter the UPS store. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 701.1.) Appellant then testified on his own behalf. He said that he had a ski mask and was carrying a cap gun because he had used them to scare his friends at a nearby park. While appellant admitted he was outside the UPS store, he denied pointing the gun at anyone. Indeed, appellant said he could not even see inside the store. After hearing this evidence, the court found the brandishing a replica firearm allegation to be true.

At disposition, the court placed appellant on probation in the custody of his mother. This appeal followed.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal late. This court deemed appellant’s late notice to be timely.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The court found the brandishing an imitation firearm allegation to be true and its finding is supported by substantial evidence. The court did not make any erroneous evidentiary rulings. We see no error in the disposition. Appellant was represented by adequate counsel.

We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

The disposition is affirmed.

We concur: Simons, J., Stevens, J.

Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

In re Randolph M.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Mar 25, 2008
No. A119269 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)
Case details for

In re Randolph M.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDOLPH M., Defendant and…

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

Date published: Mar 25, 2008

Citations

No. A119269 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)