Opinion
H044664
11-15-2017
IN RE A.U., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.U., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV41756C)
The Santa Clara County District Attorney (District Attorney) filed three separate petitions between April 2016 and April 2017, alleging the minor, A.U., came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) and had committed acts which would have been felonies or misdemeanors had they been committed by an adult. The second petition was filed in October 2016; at the time, the minor was 16 years old. As amended in December 2016, the petition (Petition B) alleged that the minor had committed acts that if committed by an adult would have constituted one felony, theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and four misdemeanors, namely, fleeing a peace officer's motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a)), resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), driving while unlicensed (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)), and carrying alcohol in a vehicle by a driver under the age of 21 (Veh. Code, § 23224, subd. (a)). At a contested jurisdictional hearing on February 23, 2017, the court granted the minor's motion to dismiss the vehicle theft count (count 1), and denied the minor's motion to suppress evidence. The court found true the remaining allegations of Petition B (counts 2 - 5). The court ordered the minor continued as a ward of the court returned him to probation.
The minor filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and we have received no response from the minor.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record. (See also In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 119 [procedures under Wende applicable to minor's appeal in delinquency case].) Following the California Supreme Court's direction in Kelly, supra, at page 110, we provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the [minor] was [adjudicated as having committed], and the punishment imposed."
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 8, 2016, at approximately 2:00 p.m., California Highway Patrol (CHP) Sergeant Lance Hedrick was on motorcycle patrol, in uniform, riding northbound on Lick Mill Boulevard in Santa Clara. While passing an older blue Chevrolet Camaro, Sergeant Hedrick observed that the front passenger had an open, half-full bottle of Corona beer between his legs, holding his index finger over the top of it. Having an open container of alcohol inside a moving vehicle is a violation of the Vehicle Code.
After making this observation, Sergeant Hedrick dropped back so that his motorcycle was immediately behind the Camaro and activated his lights to attempt to get the vehicle to pull over to the side of the road. Because the driver of the Camaro—whom Sergeant Hedrick identified in court as the minor—did not promptly comply, the sergeant activated his chirp siren. Rather than yield, the Camaro moved left from the number two lane into the number one lane. Sergeant Hedrick pulled alongside of the Camaro and instructed the minor to pull over. Although he nodded in apparent response, the minor did not comply, and instead continued to accelerate. The sergeant continued to pursue the Camaro, activating a continuous siren to accompany the lights that had already been employed. The minor made an abrupt stop to make a U-turn at a break in the center divider, and then proceeded southbound on Lick Mill Boulevard. Sergeant Hedrick testified that the activity was an unsafe driving maneuver.
Sergeant Hedrick also made a U-turn and continued to pursue the Camaro. After travelling approximately 900 feet, the minor slowed abruptly and made a second U-turn at another break in the center divider, resuming northbound travel. The sergeant also made a U-turn and continued his pursuit. The minor then made a left turn into an apartment complex. All five occupants exited the Camaro and fled in different directions. The front passenger "smashed his beer bottle on the ground of the apartment complex as he ran off." Sergeant Hedrick got off his motorcycle and pursued the driver (the minor), and the sergeant took the minor into custody as he attempted to scale a wall.
There were several unopened beer bottles inside the Camaro. While Sergeant Hedrick awaited a vehicle to transport the minor to the CHP's office, he detected the odor of alcohol emitting from the minor. The sergeant administered a preliminary alcohol screening test that confirmed that the minor had consumed alcohol and that his blood alcohol content was 0.06 percent. In response to the sergeant's question as to why he did not stop after the sergeant had activated his lights and siren, the minor said it was "[b]ecause he didn't have a driver's license and because of the beer." Sergeant Hedrick later confirmed through dispatch that the minor did not have a valid driver's license.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2016, the District Attorney filed a petition and an amended petition (Petition A) alleging the minor came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) and had committed acts which would have constituted felonies had they been committed by an adult: possessing a weapon on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2). In May 2016, the minor admitted the allegations of Petition A, and the court adjudged the minor a ward of the court. The court placed the minor on probation subject to various terms and conditions, and returned him to the custody of his parents.
In October 2016, the District Attorney filed a second petition, which was amended on December 14, 2016 (Petition B). It was alleged in Petition B that the minor came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) and had committed acts which would have constituted one felony and four misdemeanors had they been committed by an adult: theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle, a felony (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1); fleeing a peace officer's motor vehicle, a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a); count 2); resisting a peace officer, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3); driving while unlicensed, a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count 4); and carrying alcohol in a vehicle by a driver under the age of 21, a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, § 23224, subd. (a); count 5).
At a contested jurisdictional hearing on February 23, 2017, concerning Petition B, after hearing testimony from two witnesses and argument of counsel, the court granted the minor's motion to dismiss the vehicle theft allegation (count 1) based upon insufficient evidence. At the same hearing, the minor made a motion to suppress evidence, which the court denied. After denying the motion, the court found true the remaining allegations of Petition B (counts 2 - 5). On March 16, 2017, the court ordered the minor continued as a ward of the court and returned him to probation.
In April 2017, the District Attorney filed a third petition (Petition C). It was alleged in Petition C that the minor came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) and had committed an act which would have constituted a felony had it been committed by an adult: possessing a weapon on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a)).
On May 15, 2017, the minor filed an appeal from the dispositional order on Petition B entered on March 16, 2017.
DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
/s/_________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
ELIA, ACTING P.J. /s/_________
MIHARA, J.