Opinion
A120782
7-30-2008
In re WILLIE R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE R., Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published
This appeal comes before us following findings by the juvenile court at the close of a contested jurisdictional hearing that defendant committed three counts of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215), with associated enhancements for personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.53, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)), and attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). Following a dispositional hearing he was committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF), for a maximum term of physical confinement of 10 years, with 488 days of credit for time served. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or favorable modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has stated that defendant has been advised that he could file a "supplemental brief" raising any issues that he wishes to call to this courts attention. We have received a letter on July 14, 2008, from the defendant. We have reviewed and considered this letter. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On the evening of September 28, 2007, Hector Geronimo and Rodolfo Contreras drove in separate cars from a soccer game in Concord to Geronimos home on Hermosa Avenue in Pittsburg. Rodolfo parked his vehicle, a 2003 Lincoln Navigator, on the street in front of the house as he waited for Geronimo to arrive. His 13-year-old son Oscar and 7-year-old daughter Julianna waited in the car with him.
For the sake of clarity and convenience we will refer to Rodolfo Contreras and his children Oscar and Julianna by their first names.
As Geronimo arrived, four "Black guys," ranging in age from 15 to 17 years old, walked past Rodolfos car two or three times on the sidewalk. Geronimo testified that one of the boys wore camouflage clothing, the others wore black sweatshirts, all with the hoods pulled up over their heads. Rodolfo observed that one of the boys, who had braids and earrings, "did not have a — hood on."
As Geronimo parked his truck and began to walk to the house, "one of the boys threw a bottle" at him which hit the pavement in front of his truck. The "boy with the earrings" asked Geronimo if he "had any problem." Geronimo replied, "No, I dont have any problem," and continued to walk toward his house. All four boys then "came at" Geronimo as though they were "trying to assault" him and repeatedly said, "Give us money." They pushed Geronimo against the wall of his house. As Geronimo attempted to unlock the front door the boy with the earring punched him in the jaw and told defendant, who was to Geronimos left, "Get him with a gun." Defendant had his arm raised and was pointing a gun at Geronimos head from about "a foot and a half" away.
Rodolfo opened his car door and yelled, "Hey, whats going on," whereupon the boys "went towards him." Geronimo managed to open his front door, get inside his house and call the police.
Rodolfo quickly closed the car door as the boys approached him. Defendant pointed a gun at Rodolfos head from less than a foot away and yelled at him to "get out of the car." Rodolfos children were crying and left the vehicle on their own. Defendant reached into the car, grabbed Rodolfo and pulled him out of the drivers seat. When he was asked for the keys, Rodolfo told defendant "they were in the ignition." Defendant and the other three boys then got into the Navigator, with defendant in the drivers seat. Defendant started the car and drove away.
Both Geronimo and Rodolfo identified defendant as the boy who had the gun.
The police responded to Geronimos report of a stolen vehicle, and a description of the Lincoln Navigator, along with a license plate number, was broadcast. About 15 minutes later a pursuit of the Lincoln Navigator ensued in the City of Antioch that culminated when the vehicle crashed into a tree on Hudson Court. The four occupants of the car fled on foot. All four of the boys were pinned between two officers and commanded to "get on the ground and show their hands."
Defendant was detained, handcuffed, and searched; inside his right front jeans pocket was found a clear plastic bag "which contained approximately 29 .25-caliber bullets." He was not found in possession of a firearm, but a .25-caliber semiautomatic handgun was discovered on a paved jogging trail very close to the Lincoln Navigator. The magazine had been dislodged from the gun, but was lying only 18 inches away. One live round was on the pavement next to the gun, another was in the chamber, and several other rounds were still in the magazine.
Rodolfo and Oscar were transported to the scene of the detention by Antioch police officers. They identified the four detained subjects, including defendant, as the boys who carjacked the Lincoln Navigator.
DISCUSSION
We find nothing in the record of the proceedings before the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings which presents an issue to be considered on appeal. No defects in the petitions, the detention order, or the notification procedures are indicated. Defendant brought no motions prior to or during the dispositional and jurisdictional hearings, and none were appropriate.
We have reviewed the evidence presented at the jurisdictional hearing and find substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court. The three carjacking findings are properly based on evidence of threats and fear directed at Rodolfo and his two children. (See People v. Hill (2000) 23 Cal.4th 853, 858-860.) The evidence of the attempted robbery of Geronimo is essentially undisputed. The identifications of defendant by Geronimo and Rodolfo were positive, and not tainted by any impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures. We have not discovered any objections to or disputes over the admission or exclusion of evidence which require further review.
Turning to the dispositional hearing, the trial courts order is not an abuse of discretion. (In re Carmen M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 478, 486.) Given the extreme seriousness of the offenses, defendants personal use of a firearm, his prior history of numerous offenses, the previous failure in less restrictive programs, and his repeated violations of the terms of parole or probation, the juvenile courts decision to commit defendant to the DJF serves the dual concerns of the best interests of the minor and public protection. (In re Jimmy P. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1679, 1684.) The 10-year commitment is within proper limits, and under the circumstances was a rather fortunate disposition for defendant. The juvenile court was justified in ordering restitution and imposing a restitution fine. No error in the calculation of sentence credits is indicated in the record.
Appellant was represented by competent counsel throughout the proceedings.
Our review discloses no meritorious issues to be argued.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
Marchiano, P. J.
Margulies, J.