From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. J.M. (In re J.M.)

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Aug 29, 2023
No. F086287 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2023)

Opinion

F086287

08-29-2023

In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.M., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Laura Vavakin, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. 19CEJ600305-2. Virna L. Santos, Judge.

Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT [*]

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY

This appeal is from a final judgment that finally disposes of the issues between the parties and challenges the court's dispositional order declaring wardship after J.M. admitted the allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. It is authorized by section 800. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(B).)

All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On December 21, 2021, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition against J.M. pursuant to section 602, subdivision (a). The petition alleged assault with an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(3); count 1) and assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2). Criminal street gang enhancements (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), use of an assault weapon enhancements (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (b)), and great bodily injury enhancements (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) were alleged as to count 1 and 2.

On March 27, 2023, J.M. admitted count 1 and the use of an assault weapon enhancement as well as the great bodily injury enhancement related to count 1; count 2 and the remaining enhancements were dismissed. The juvenile court advised J.M. that he was admitting a strike offense and the offense was not concealable under section 707, subdivision (b). The juvenile court advised J.M. that 17 years was the maximum period of confinement. The parties stipulated disposition would include the Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF).

On May 5, 2023, the juvenile court declared wardship and ordered J.M. committed to the SYTF with a baseline term commitment of two years. J.M. was given 503 days credit toward the maximum period of confinement of 17 years. J.M.'s counsel requested that the juvenile court apply precommitment credits against the baseline term as opposed to the maximum confinement period; the court denied the request.

J.M. filed a timely notice of appeal on May 19, 2023.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Because this matter was resolved in an admission by J.M., the following facts are adduced from the section 241.1 staffing report. At sentencing, the parties stipulated that there was a factual basis for the plea.

On November 21, 2021, 15-year-old E.M. was at a party at an Air BNB for her friend's birthday. At some point, she heard a commotion and then shooting outside. When she ran towards the hallway, her brother pushed her out of the way, she heard a "pow," and she was hit in the stomach, which caused her to fly back. E.M. heard L.C. (the party's host) yelling, "Why would you shoot her?" E.M. said that when she fell, she looked up and saw J.M.'s face, and she saw that he was holding a rifle. E.M. told police J.M. was the only person shooting inside the home. She also mentioned that earlier that evening she and J.M. had a verbal altercation during which he had called her a "bitch" and he was "mugging" her the whole night. According to E.M.'s doctor, E.M. suffered permanent injuries and will require long term, if not lifelong, dialysis.

Police interviewed L.C., who told them some boys had arrived at the party and, since they were not invited, she asked them to leave. After they left, she heard shots "ring out." Police officers observed that it appeared as though a shootout had occurred between individuals inside the party and outside the home. Police also observed several bottles of alcohol inside the home. When questioned about the alcohol, L.C. said there was only a bottle of wine; the other kids must have brought the alcohol. L.C. also told police that she saw boys arrive at the party with guns, and she told them to "take them out."

Police learned through J.M.'s grandmother that J.M. admitted to her that he and his brother took an Uber to the party and they brought a gun.

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW

J.M.'s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating J.M. was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on July 12, 2023, we invited J.M. to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to J.M.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court's dispositional order is affirmed.

[*] Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.


Summaries of

People v. J.M. (In re J.M.)

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Aug 29, 2023
No. F086287 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2023)
Case details for

People v. J.M. (In re J.M.)

Case Details

Full title:In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.M.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 29, 2023

Citations

No. F086287 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2023)