In re B.M.





Filed 1/28/11 In re B.M. CA1/3


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re B.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.M., Defendant and Appellant.	A129468 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J06-01464)

B.M. (appellant) appeals from a dispositional order committing him to the custody of the Youthful Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) after he admitted he had a concealed firearm on his person (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (a)(2),[1] count 1). Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the order.
Factual and Procedural Background
On April 12, 2010, the Contra Costa County district attorney’s office filed a second supplemental wardship petition alleging appellant had a concealed firearm on his person (§ 12025, subd. (a)(2), count 1), carried a loaded firearm that was not registered to him (§ 12031, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and resisted, obstructed or delayed a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant admitted count 1 and the other two counts were dismissed.
According to the probation report, at approximately 5:50 p.m. on April 8, 2010, San Pablo police officers responded to a report that three minors were in possession of firearms. According to the reporting parties, one of the minors, later identified as appellant, was “the leader” who pulled out the gun, racked the slide, and handed it to another minor. Appellant then pulled out another gun and handed it to the third minor. It appeared appellant was pressuring the other two minors who seemed “unwilling to be a part of what appellant was doing.” The minors were “staring” at the reporting parties and talking as they handled the guns. The reporting parties, who became “fearful for their lives and thought they might get robbed,” fled the area and called the police.
When an officer arrived at the scene, all three minors were sitting on the curb. Appellant immediately stood up, turned, and began walking at a fast pace away from the area. When the officer instructed appellant to stop, appellant “went into a full sprint, running away from the area.” Another police unit detained the other two minors who were not in possession of any weapons and were later released. Another officer intercepted appellant and ordered him to stop and get on the ground, to which appellant complied. No weapons were found on appellant. The officers conducted a search of the surrounding area using a K-9 dog and found a revolver handgun on the balcony of a nearby residence. The resident living in the unit reported she did not own a gun and that she heard a loud sound on her balcony shortly before the officers arrived.
Police determined appellant’s grandmother was the registered owner of the gun. The grandmother told officers her gun was locked away in the filing cabinet in her closet and that she had not given appellant permission to take the gun. Later inspection showed the filing cabinet had been pried open. Appellant admitted he stole his grandmother’s gun and said he was carrying it for protection. He said he ran away from the officer because he had the gun and that he threw it on the balcony while running away.
The probation report indicated that out of home placement was necessary at the time. Appellant was attending a transitional learning center where his performance was “marginal,” and he had been placed on independent study due to “constant emotional outbursts and behavioral problems.” He told the probation officer he smoked marijuana, including on the day of his arrest. His “lack of commitment to counseling [had] . . . resulted in the therapist’s warning to close [his] case.” Appellant had been found unsuitable for out of home placement with some facilities due to his diabetic condition, which required four injections on a daily basis, but the probation officer reported in an addendum that appellant had been found suitable for the “County Institution Program, YOTP.” The probation officer recommended that appellant be detained in juvenile hall pending placement with YOTP.
At a contested dispositional hearing, appellant’s probation officer testified that a treatment team determined in October 2009 that appellant and his family needed wrap-around services, which would assist the family in identifying problems and connect the family with available services. The services were not provided “until recently” due to various issues, including appellant’s lack of commitment, the inability to schedule an appointment with appellant’s mother, and a substance abuse program refusing to allow appellant to return because “tension” between appellant and the other residents created a safety concern. By March 2010, the issues between appellant and his mother “had escalated to point of where, the two [could not] really stand being in the same room anymore.” She testified that if appellant were placed in YOTP, YOTP would ensure he took the medication he needed on a regular basis.
The juvenile court denied appellant’s motion to reduce count 1 to a misdemeanor. It continued appellant as a ward of the court, removed him from his parents’ custody, and committed him to a county institution for a maximum allowable confinement of three years four months, with credit for 91 days served.
Discussion
The juvenile court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to reduce count 1 to a misdemeanor. (See § 12025, subd. (b)(2) [carrying a concealed firearm is punishable as a felony where “the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen”].) Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in committing appellant to YOTP. Appellant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings and appeared at each hearing. He has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal. We have reviewed the “entire record in this case and have found no arguable issues therein.” (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
Disposition
The dispositional order is affirmed.


_________________________
McGuiness, P.J.


We concur:


_________________________
Pollak, J.


_________________________
Siggins, J.



Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---