Opinion
C086049
08-30-2018
In re M.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.M., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JV138135)
This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende and In re Kevin S., we affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
The People filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that 15-year-old M.M. (the minor) committed a felony violation of Penal Code section 626.10, subdivision (a), by unlawfully possessing a BB gun on the grounds of a high school. The minor's two motions to suppress evidence, arising from a search by and his statements made to the responding officer (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 ), were denied by the trial court.
The juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing, wherein the People presented the testimony of school resource officer, Kelly Hodges (Officer Hodges), who was at the high school when she was notified of a 911 call about a student armed with a gun in his waistband by the bicycle racks. The caller provided the minor's name and described his race, build, age, and clothing. Officer Hodges' sergeant also informed her of the minor's "prior gun history."
Officer Hodges contacted a group of students at the bicycle rack. The minor, who matched the description of the armed student, was sitting on the ground. The minor confirmed his identity, and Officer Hodges immediately placed him in handcuffs. Officer Hodges did not find a gun during her safety search of the minor, but noted a backpack within feet of him and was concerned about the whereabouts of the gun. The minor admitted the backpack was his, and after an initial unpersuasive denial, confirmed to Officer Hodges that the backpack contained a BB gun. Officer Hodges searched the backpack and recovered the BB gun, as well as the minor's school identification. The minor was placed under arrest and Mirandized on the walk to Officer Hodges' patrol car. Thereafter, the minor admitted the BB gun was his, that he had received it from his father, and that he had brought it to school for protection. This BB gun utilized compressed air to shoot pellets and resembled a real gun.
The juvenile court found the allegations of the wardship petition were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the minor was a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The minor's previous motion to have his offense treated as a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b)) was inferentially denied when the court confirmed the subject offense was a felony at the dispositional hearing. The minor was ordered to serve 35 days in juvenile hall with 35 days' credit and 60 days of electronic monitoring with 14 days' credit. The court imposed all special conditions recommended by the probation department and added that the minor must provide a DNA sample. Included in those conditions was that the minor perform 28 hours of community service. The court also imposed the minimum restitution fine of $100. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (b)(1).)
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent the minor on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The minor was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from the minor. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/_________
DUARTE, Acting P. J.
/S/_________
HOCH, J.