From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Rodrigo B.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Mar 7, 2008
No. G039010 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2008)

Opinion


In re RODRIGO B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODRIGO B., Defendant and Appellant. G039010 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Third Division March 7, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Super. Ct. No. DL026072, Joy W. Markman, Judge.

Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

FYBEL, J.

Introduction

The juvenile court sustained a petition filed against then 15-year-old Rodrigo B., which alleged Rodrigo committed second degree robbery and street terrorism. The court also found true beyond a reasonable doubt enhancement allegations that Rodrigo personally used a firearm at the time of the robbery offense, and that he committed that offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The juvenile court ordered Rodrigo to continue as a ward of the court and, inter alia, ordered him committed to a juvenile facility for 730 days.

We appointed counsel to represent Rodrigo on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel suggested we consider whether the record shows ineffective assistance of counsel, malicious prosecution, or prosecutorial misconduct.

Rodrigo was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period of time has passed, and we have received no communication from him.

We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende brief, and find no arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

Facts and Proceedings in the Trial Court

In November 2006, Rodrigo was charged in a petition with gang-related vandalism, possession of a firearm, and street terrorism. The petition contained an enhancement allegation that Rodrigo possessed the firearm for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Rodrigo admitted the possession of a firearm and street terrorism offenses; the juvenile court thereafter dismissed the vandalism charge and the enhancement allegation. The juvenile court declared Rodrigo a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and ordered him to serve 90 days in a juvenile facility.

In December 2006, a second petition was filed against Rodrigo, alleging one count of battery which he admitted. The court ordered that Rodrigo continue as a ward of the juvenile court, and ordered him committed to a juvenile facility for 30 days consecutive to his then current commitment.

In January 2007, a third petition was filed against Rodrigo, alleging one count of vandalism and one count of street terrorism. The petition was amended to add a third count, vandalism committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (d). Rodrigo admitted the third count and the gang enhancement allegation; the court dismissed the first and second counts. The court ordered Rodrigo a continued ward of the juvenile court and imposed another consecutive 30-day commitment in a juvenile facility.

In May 2007, a fourth petition was filed against Rodrigo, which alleged, as later amended, one count of second degree robbery and one count of street terrorism (the petition). The petition also contained enhancement allegations stating that Rodrigo personally used a firearm during the commission of the robbery, and committed the robbery 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 members of that gang.

At trial on the petition, evidence was presented showing that early in the morning on May 10, 2007, Angelos Salamah was walking on a sidewalk in Santa Ana when Rodrigo and a second minor, Cesar G., approached him. Cesar approached Salamah from behind and told him to “give me your cash,” while holding a gun to the back of Salamah’s head. Rodrigo stood in front of Salamah and, while holding a gun “[r]ight in [his] face,” told Salamah to “give me everything that is on you.” After Salamah “went to the middle of the street” to seek help, Rodrigo and Cesar “chased [him] down the street.” Rodrigo and/or Cesar twice threatened Salamah during the incident to “[g]ive us what you have or we’re going to kill you.”

Cesar hit Salamah with his gun on the back of his head “[p]retty hard,” and Rodrigo yanked off the chain Salamah was wearing around his neck. From Salamah’s back pocket, Cesar removed $80, Salamah’s driver’s license, and paperwork Salamah had received upon his recent release from jail. Rodrigo and Cesar then “disappeared.”

An expert on criminal street gangs testified that on May 10, 2007, Rodrigo and Cesar were active members of the Krazy Proud Criminals street gang. In response to a hypothetical question (which was generally based on the circumstances of the robbery in this case), the expert testified a robbery under such circumstances would be committed to benefit a criminal street gang.

The juvenile court sustained both counts and found true beyond a reasonable doubt the enhancement allegations of the petition. The court ordered Rodrigo to continue as a ward of the juvenile court and further ordered that he be committed to a juvenile facility for 730 days. Rodrigo appealed.

Analysis of Potential Issues

Appointed counsel suggested we consider the following possible issues: “Whether the Appellate Record Demonstrates Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Malicious Prosecution, or Prosecutorial Misconduct?”

Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appointed counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Rodrigo in this appeal and the record does not provide grounds to reasonably argue ineffective assistance of counsel, malicious prosecution, or prosecutorial misconduct.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., RYLAARSDAM, J.


Summaries of

In re Rodrigo B.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Mar 7, 2008
No. G039010 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2008)
Case details for

In re Rodrigo B.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODRIGO B., Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

Date published: Mar 7, 2008

Citations

No. G039010 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2008)