Filed 10/19/26 In re E.R. CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 TWO
In re E.R., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
A176030
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
(Alameda County Super. Ct.
E.R., No. JV03892507)
Defendant and Appellant.
Minor E.R. appeals from a juvenile court dispositional order removing
him from the home of his mother. E.R.’s court-appointed counsel has filed a
brief asking this court for an independent review of the record under People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. E.R. was informed of his right to file a
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We have reviewed counsel’s brief
and have independently reviewed the record. We find no errors or other
issues requiring further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm.
We draw the underlying facts and procedural background from the
probation report filed on February 17, 2026, because E.R. admitted the
underlying allegation in this appeal.
1
By way of background, on May 7, 2025, E.R. was adjudged a ward of
the Alameda County Juvenile Court and placed on probation. In September
2025, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a supplemental petition
alleging he violated probation, an allegation to which E.R. admitted. The
court found the supplemental petition true and released E.R. from juvenile
hall to his mother with GPS monitoring. And on January 5, 2026, the court
continued E.R.’s wardship.
On January 21, 2026, the district attorney filed a new wardship
petition (Welf and Inst. Code, § 602), alleging three felonies: possession of a
machine gun (Pen.1 Code, § 32625, subd. (a); count 1), carrying a concealed
firearm on the person (§ 25400, subd. (a)(2); count 2), and carrying a loaded
firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a); count 3). As to count 2, it was further
alleged the firearm was loaded (§ 25400, subd. (c)(6)), and as to count 3, that
E.R. was within a class prohibited from possessing a firearm because he was
a minor (§ 25850, subd. (c)(4)). It was also alleged that E.R. was a minor in
possession of a firearm, a misdemeanor (§ 29610; count 4). This is the
petition at issue in the instant appeal.
The probation report relates that on January 19, 2026, Oakland Police
Department officers followed and detained E.R. and two companions after
seeing him conceal a firearm. E.R. spontaneously told the police, “ ‘I got
something on me, it’s on my left armpit.’ ” A search revealed it was a loaded
automatic machine gun that was reported stolen.
On February 2, E.R. entered into a negotiated agreement admitting to
count 2, carrying a concealed firearm on his person. The remaining
allegations were dismissed.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
stated.
2
On March 10, 2026, at the disposition hearing, the court continued E.R.
as a ward of the court and E.R. was placed on an out of home placement after
the court made findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 726,
subdivision (a)(1), (2), and (3). The court ordered that E.R. be placed in a
“suitable family home or group home.” The court denied E.R.’s request to
remain on electronic monitoring and to continue the disposition for 30 days to
give probation time to consider whether E.R. could be placed in his sister’s
home.
On March 13, E.R. filed a timely notice of appeal from the March 10
disposition order, the instant appeal.
On March 24, at a placement review hearing, E.R. told the court that
he wanted to be permitted to live with his sister. The court ordered the
probation department to vet the sister’s home for a potential RFA (resource
family approval) placement.
On April 7, at a placement conference, the court gave the probation
department discretion to place E.R. with his sister because probation had
vetted and found the sister’s home to be suitable for resource family approval
once the sister obtained a mattress and dresser for E.R.2 E.R. stated that he
wanted to be with his sister.
At the progress report hearing on April 21, E.R.’s counsel reported that
E.R. had been placed at his sister’s home the night before. The court
2 We granted E.R.’s appellate counsel’s request to augment the record
for the proceedings occurring on April 7 and April 21, 2026, which counsel
represented was “essential for counsel to assess the viability of potential
issues.”
3
described this as “fantastic news,” and noted that E.R. “was going to
originally perhaps go to a STRTP[3], and he ended up with his sister.”
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal for any arguable issues.
Based on our review of the record before us, E.R. was at all times
effectively represented by counsel, who protected his rights and interests.
We see no error in the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings or
disposition.
The court ascertained that E.R. understood the rights he was waiving
and the consequences of his plea, and the record provides a factual basis for
the plea. The court found E.R. knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently
waived his rights and the plea was voluntary.
The disposition imposed appears to be authorized by law.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
3 E.R.’s appellate counsel uses this acronym to refer to a “short-term
residential therapeutic program.”
4
_________________________
Miller, J.*
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Richman, Acting P. J.
_________________________
Desautels, J.
A176030, People v. E.R.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
5