Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. YJ31413, Irma J. Brown, Judge.
Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
The juvenile court found that S.Q. committed vandalism for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The court declared him a ward of the court and ordered him placed on home probation on various terms and conditions. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2008, Debra Donnelly had just left an apartment building she owned in the La Cienega Heights area of Los Angeles and was in her car preparing to drive away when she saw a group of seven young men inside the courtyard of her apartment building. Five of the youths were Hispanic and two were Black. Some of the young men hovered around the mailboxes and others around the gate. After they walked off, Donnelly noticed that the lock to the apartment gate had been broken and that graffiti had been spray painted on the mailboxes.
Donnelley was so “outraged” she followed the group of young men in her car for 45 minutes to an hour and watched them spray paint graffiti on at least 10 different locations throughout the La Cienega Heights area. The Hispanic youths spray painted symbols in black paint and the Black youths used a silver metallic color to spray paint the letters “PBG.”
When police officers arrived, Donnelley saw the group of youths dash into an apartment building. She later identified S.Q. in a field show-up as one of the Hispanic youths she saw spray painting graffiti.
Connie Collins, the head of the neighborhood watch committee, received a telephone call from Donnelley alerting her that a group of youths was then spray painting graffiti in the neighborhood. Collins went into her backyard, looked into the alley, and saw the group of youths Donnelley had described. One of the youths was then spray painting graffiti on a wall. She called police and alerted other neighbors to watch. Collins got into her car and drove around the neighborhood coordinating with Donnelley to keep watch on the vandals. Collins personally witnessed six separate acts of the youths spray painting graffiti. The Black youths spray painted the letters “PBG” and the Hispanic youths spray painted the letters “DIM.”
After observing this activity for over 20 minutes, Collins, Donnelley and police officers all converged on the same street as the taggers. When one of the police officers exited his vehicle and asked the youths to stop, they all started walking quickly into an apartment building. One of the officers reached out to S.Q. to stop him but S.Q. eluded the officer’s grasp and ran with the others into an apartment.
In a later field show-up Collins also identified S.Q. as one of the taggers.
Officer Christopher Cox testified as a gang expert on the criminal street gang known as the Down Insane Malditos, or “D.I.M.” gang. The “D.I.M.” gang operates in the La Cienega Heights area and has as its headquarters the apartment building where S.Q. and the others were congregating when detained by the police. One of the older Hispanics in the group of taggers was identified as a documented member of the criminal street gang Down Insane Malditos. The two Black youths were identified as members of the Playboy Gangster Crips, or “PBG.” The expert explained that the two gangs worked together to expand their influence, with the goal of expanding their territory beyond the La Cienega Heights area.
Officer Cox testified that young associates wishing to join the gang often “put in work” for the gang by tagging the territory with gang graffiti under the supervision of a more senior member. The tagging, the expert explained, helps promote the gang by establishing its dominance and influence in the area. According to Officer Cox, the primary criminal activities of D.I.M. included street robberies, assaults with deadly weapons, firearm possession, and narcotics sales. To show the pattern of D.I.M.’s criminal activity, the prosecutor introduced certified records concerning known D.I.M. gang members who in 2004 and 2005 had suffered convictions or sustained petitions for grand theft.
In response to a hypothetical question based on the facts of the case, the expert opined that S.Q. was “associating with a known documented self-admitted D.I.M. gang member along with PBG gang members in the D.I.M. neighborhood in the commission of a D.I.M. gang crime,” and that spray painting “D.I.M.” benefitted the D.I.M. gang by declaring its territory and dominance in the area.
Testifying on his own behalf, S.Q. stated that on January 10, 2008, he attended school and, after school, he and his next-door neighbor walked to another friend’s apartment where they stood outside and talked until police arrived. S.Q. denied spray painting graffiti. He was, however, familiar with “D.I.M.” graffiti and knew what it meant “[b]ecause everyone knows it’s a gang around there.”
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition charged S.Q. with eight counts of vandalism in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a). The petition alleged that each of the offenses was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with, a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A) & (d).)
After the adjudication hearing the petition was amended according to proof of the victims’ out-of pocket damages to allege two felony and five misdemeanor vandalism counts under Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a). The court sustained all the allegations of the petition as amended and ordered S.Q. detained at home on specified conditions of probation.
S.Q. timely filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which counsel raised no issues and asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On February 19, 2009, we advised S.Q. he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that S.Q.’s counsel has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J., FERNS, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.