Opinion
H047383
08-26-2020
In re E.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.W., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 16JV42139)
A petition was filed on May 23, 2019 (hereafter, Petition G), alleging that E.W., a minor (17 years old), came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The minor was charged in Petition G with conduct occurring on May 21, 2019, in Palo Alto that would have constituted felonies if committed by an adult, namely, robbery in an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, § 212.5), and first-degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (a)). Another petition was filed on July 22, 2019 (hereafter, Petition I), charging the minor with conduct that would have constituted felonies if they had been committed by an adult, namely, two additional counts of first-degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (a)), both alleged to have been committed on May 13, 2019. The minor admitted both counts alleged in Petition G and the first count alleged in Petition I. He also admitted a violation of probation as alleged in a separate petition (Petition H). The court, after sustaining both counts in Petition G, sustaining Count 1 in Petition I, and dismissing Count 2 in that petition, and after a contested hearing, ordered the minor committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The court, thereafter, pursuant to a motion to reconsider filed on the minor's behalf, ordered the minor committed to a ranch program, which was the disposition the minor had previously urged during the contested hearing.
In referring to the relevant petitions here as Petition G, H, and Petition I, to avoid confusion, we follow the nomenclature of the juvenile court below.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. --------
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 the minor of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The time period has elapsed without the minor having filed such written argument.
Pursuant to applicable law (see People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97), we have reviewed the entire record. We provide a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the allegations against the minor, and the disposition imposed by the juvenile court.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Petition G
In the early afternoon of May 21, 2019, police responded to a reported home invasion robbery in Palo Alto. The incident involved two suspects, one being the minor, who forcibly entered the home of a 71-year-old woman by kicking in a side door. The minor's accomplice, A.S., ordered the woman to sit on the couch while the minor looked for personal property. A.S. forcibly removed from the victim's finger her wedding ring (given to her by her late husband). The minor and A.S. stole cash, jewelry, a cellphone, car keys, and a laptop computer. They fled the scene through the garage by taking the victim's car. Both the minor and A.S. were apprehended, and both were positively identified by the victim as the perpetrators of the home invasion robbery. The victim later reported that she was seeking restitution of $2,300 for stolen cash and jewelry, including her wedding ring.
B. Petition I
There was a burglary of a home on Flagstad Court in San Jose at approximately 9:30 a.m. on May 13, 2019. The minor entered the home without permission and attempted to steal a jewelry box. Residents confronted the minor and were able to retrieve some items that the minor had taken. The minor left with two pairs of gold earrings. One of the residents knew the minor by a street name, and other residents were able to identify the minor.
On May 13, 2019, there was a second residential burglary involving the minor. This incident occurred at a home on Fremi Court in San Jose.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petition G was filed on May 23, 2019, alleging that the minor had committed conduct on May 21, 2019, at a residence on Colorado Avenue in Palo Alto that would have constituted felonies had they been committed by an adult, namely, robbery in an inhabited dwelling (§ 212.5; Count 1), and first-degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (a); Count 2). On May 24, 2019, the minor admitted the allegations of Petition G, having signed a formal waiver.
Petition I was filed on July 22, 2019, alleging that the minor had committed acts that would have constituted felonies if committed by an adult, namely, two counts of first-degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (a)), both alleged to have been committed on May 13, 2019. Count 1 concerned a residence on Flagstad Court in San Jose; Count 2 involved a residence on Fremi Court in San Jose. On July 25, 2019, the minor admitted the allegations of Count 1 of Petition I, and he signed a formal waiver. The court dismissed Count 2.
On August 20, 2019, the minor admitted two circumstances supporting a violation of probation as alleged in Petition H. On that basis, the juvenile court sustained the violation of probation alleged in Petition H, and it dismissed two of the circumstances alleged in that petition.
After a contested dispositional hearing occurring over several days, the court on October 2, 2019, adopted the recommendations of the Probation Department, ordering the minor to DJJ. As to Petition G, it ordered victim restitution of $2,300. The juvenile court further found that the maximum time of confinement was 20 years, four months.
The minor filed a timely notice of appeal on October 3, 2019.
We have been advised by minor's counsel that, after the filing of the appeal, the juvenile court, pursuant to the minor's motion, reconsidered its order of disposition. On May 22, 2020, the court vacated its prior order directing that the minor be sent to DJJ, and issued a new order sending the minor to a ranch program (the disposition the minor had advocated at the prior contested hearing).
III. DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record. Based upon that review, we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
IV. DISPOSITION
The dispositional order of October 3, 2019, as thereafter vacated and modified on May 22, 2020, is affirmed.
/s/_________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
PREMO, ACTING P.J. /s/_________
ELIA, J.