In re Eric V.
Filed 2/22/08 In re Eric V. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re ERIC V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC V., Defendant and Appellant. | B195488 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VJ32058) |
APPEAL from an order of wardship of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steff R. Padilla, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Melissa J. Kim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Eric V., a minor, appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) entered following an admission that he committed the offense of possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen. Code, 12101, subd. (a)). The court ordered him placed in camp. Appellant claims he did not admit that he committed the offense. We affirm the order of wardship.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
The record reflects that on October 1, 2006, a Maywood police officer found appellant in possession of a loaded .38-caliber revolver.
CONTENTION
Appellant claims he did not admit that he committed the offense of possession of a firearm by a minor.
DISCUSSION
Appellant Admitted that He Committed the Offense of Possession of a Firearm by a Minor.
1. Pertinent Facts.
A petition filed on October 3, 2006, alleged as counts 1 and 2, that appellant committed the offenses of possession of a firearm by a minor, and carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, 12031, subd. (a)), respectively. On November 7, 2006, the court called the case for trial, appellant was personally in court, and his counsel indicated the parties had agreed to continue the matter for a suppression motion which counsel said he expected to be dispositive.
On November 16, 2006, following the suppression hearing, the court denied the suppression motion. Appellants counsel, in appellants presence, then stated that appellant was prepared to admit count 1. Appellants counsel added that camp placement had been discussed. The court said there had never been two finer attorneys who had appeared before it, and the court thanked them for their excellent work.
The court asked appellant if he had had enough time to talk with his attorney, and appellant replied yes. After appellant waived his constitutional rights, the court asked appellant if he understood that this admission could result in his deportation, or denial of reentry or exclusion from the country, and appellant replied yes. The court asked appellant if he understood that this admission could result in revocation of probation or parole in another case, and appellant replied yes. The court advised appellant about its dispositional options and anticipated probation conditions, and appellant indicated he understood.
The court asked appellant if anyone had used force or had threatened him to admit to this petition and appellant replied no. The court also asked if anyone had made promises to appellant to get him to admit to this petition and appellant replied no. The following then occurred: The Court: Are you admitting to this petition freely and voluntarily because you believe its in your best interest to do so at this time? [] [Appellant]: Yes. The court asked appellants counsel if he stipulated to a factual basis, waiver, and the plea, and counsel indicated he did based on the underlying reports and the courts ruling on the suppression motion. The court found appellant waived his right to a trial, was aware of the charge against him, and was aware of the consequences of the admission of the charge. The court found true count 1. The court dismissed count 2 and a previous petition. The court entered an order of wardship, ordered appellant placed in camp, and imposed various probation conditions. Appellant never objected that he had not admitted count 1 of the petition. The November 16, 2006 minute order reflects, Minor admits . . . to . . . [p]etition filed 10-3-06. The minute order also reflects the court found true the petition as to count 1 and sustained the petition.
2. Analysis.
Appellant claims he did not admit that he committed the offense of possession of a firearm by a minor as alleged in count 1. We disagree. It is clear from the record that, pursuant to negotiations, appellant agreed to admit count 1. Everything that occurred supports, and nothing that occurred negates, the existence of that agreement.
Pursuant to the negotiations, the trial court ultimately asked appellant, Are you admitting to this petition freely and voluntarily because you believe its in your best interest to do so at this time? Appellant replied yes. By that exchange, appellant expressly admitted to the petition, and impliedly admitted to count 1 of the petition. Those facts are not altered by the fact that he also admitted he was doing so freely and voluntarily, and because it was in his best interest. Nothing more was required from appellant. He admitted to his commission of the offense of possession of a firearm by a minor as alleged in count 1. (Cf. People v. Dale (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 191, 193, 195; People v. Niendorf (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 594, 597-598.)
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KITCHING, J.
We concur:
KLEIN, P. J.
ALDRICH, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
