Opinion
F078475
10-31-2019
In re DEVIN A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEVIN A., Defendant and Appellant.
Richard M. Oberto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16CEJ600680-2)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge. Richard M. Oberto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.
-ooOoo-
The juvenile court adjudged appellant Devin A. a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after it found true allegations that appellant committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and that a principal was armed with a firearm during the robbery (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2018, appellant, A.G., and C.G. contacted Jacob V. through a cell phone application about purchasing some marijuana vape pens that were worth $40 each and they arranged for Jacob to take some to the house in Sanger where A.G. lived. At around 11:00 p.m., Jacob drove with Pablo C. to the house in Sanger to deliver the vape pens and parked in the driveway. Appellant and the two other boys were waiting in a side yard by the driveway. When Jacob arrived, C.G. and A.G. ran up to the car pointing firearms at Jacob. C.G. pointed a revolver at Jacob's face, and A.G. pointed an AR-15- style rifle at him. Appellant stayed in the background. C.G. told Jacob, " 'Get the F*** out of here before we shoot you.' " Jacob dropped a bag containing approximately 25 vape pens and he and Pablo ran away, leaving the car running. Appellant picked up the bag. Later appellant and his cohorts sent Jacob a text message telling him to go retrieve the car.
Jacob called 911 after the robbery and was eventually picked up by a Sanger police officer about two blocks from where the robbery occurred. Meanwhile, Sanger Police Officer Deshawn Torrence and other officers responded to the scene of the robbery shortly after 11:28 p.m. Torrence detained and handcuffed A.G.'s brother at the rear door to the house. He detained and handcuffed A.G. in the kitchen and appellant and C.G. in the master bedroom. All four were subsequently seated outside the house on a curb. Jacob was returned to the location for an in-field lineup and he identified appellant, C.G., and A.G. as participants in the robbery.
A.G.'s mother arrived at the house around 11:38 p.m., and she initially refused to consent to a search of the house, so the officers began the process of obtaining a search warrant. However, at 1:42 a.m. she consented, and officers searched the house. In one room they found an AR-15-style rifle with no magazine attached, a silver revolver with a single round and the trigger cocked back, a magazine for the AR-15-style rifle, a holster, and a bump stock for an AR-15-style rifle. In the master bedroom they found a backpack that contained several items including vaping pens and a wallet with Jacob's driver's license and a debit card belonging to Pablo.
Officer Torrence spoke to appellant twice about the robbery. The first time at around 12:15 a.m. after another officer read appellant and C.G. their Miranda rights and again at 4:00 a.m. in an interrogation room at the police department. Although appellant and C.G. initially said several times they did not understand their rights, eventually they both acknowledged they did and they were then interviewed separately. During the first interview, appellant did not make any overtly incriminating statements. Prior to the second interview, Torrence asked appellant if he remembered his rights and understood them, and appellant acknowledged that he did. Appellant then described how they lured Jacob to A.G.'s house and took the vape pens from him at gunpoint.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
On September 4, 2018, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a petition charging appellant with second degree robbery and a principal armed with a firearm enhancement.
On September 11, 2018, the court granted the district attorney's motion to consolidate appellant's case with those of C.G. and A.G.
On September 26, 2018, the court granted the prosecutor's motion to sever C.G.'s case.
On October 10, 2018, following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegations against appellant. During the hearing, the court denied appellant's motion to suppress his statements to Officer Torrence on Miranda grounds.
The court also found true allegations charging A.G. with robbery and a personal use of a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). --------
On October 24, 2018, the court set appellant's maximum term of confinement at six years and committed him to the Juvenile Justice Campus for 180 days.
Appellant's appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.