Filed 7/16/26 In re I.R. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re I.R., a Person Coming Under the H053614
Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. 24JV46879A)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
I.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
The juvenile court adjudged I.R. a ward of the court after finding unauthorized use
of a vehicle and reckless driving, and it placed I.R. on home probation in addition to
imposing other requirements.
I.R. appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed an
opening brief stating the case but raising no issues. We advised I.R. of his right to file
written argument on his own behalf but received no response.
Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the entire record pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly).
We conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Consequently, we affirm the
juvenile court’s disposition order.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2024, K.A. parked her car, a silver 2017 Elantra, in front of the house
of her boyfriend in Gilroy and locked the car doors. (To protect the victim’s privacy, we
use initials to refer to her. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(10).) Early the next
morning, the sound of breaking glass awoke her boyfriend’s brother, whose bedroom
faced the street, and he saw several men in face masks, one wearing a black hoodie, near
K.A.’s car. The brother also saw a flashlight in or near the car and then the car being
driven away. The police were called, and K.A. gave her car’s license plate number to an
officer, who relayed it to a dispatch center.
Later that morning, two police officers in San José saw a car with that license plate
number pass by them at a stop light. One of the officers saw that the driver wore a black-
hooded sweatshirt and the passenger a red-hooded sweatshirt. Because there was concern
that the drivers might be armed, the officers merely followed the car, which was driven at
high speed in an erratic, serpentine manner and ran both a stop sign and a red light.
Eventually, the car hit a median and crashed into a tree. The officers following the car
saw an individual wearing a red sweatshirt exit the passenger’s side and another
individual wearing a black sweatshirt exit the driver’s side. The individual in the black
sweatshirt, who later was identified as I.R., was arrested. Inside the car, the police found
that the protective casing for the ignition had been broken in a way that allowed the car to
be started without a key. I.R.’s cellphone also was found inside the car.
At the time of his arrest in June 2024, I.R. was 15 years old. After being admitted
into Juvenile Hall, he was released into his mother’s custody, and several months later a
wardship petition was filed, which alleged taking or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh.
Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1) and reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a);
count 2).
2
In May, June, and July 205, a contested hearing was conducted. The district
attorney presented five witnesses. K.A. testified that she did not give anyone permission
to drive her car on the morning of June 3, 2024. Her boyfriend’s brother testified that he
saw an individual wearing a black sweatshirt with a hood near the car before it was
driven away. A Gilroy police officer testified that he investigated a report of a stolen car,
obtained the car’s license plate number, and relayed the number to the dispatch center.
Finally, two San José police officers testified that they identified K.A.’s car from its
license plate, observed the car moving erratically at excess speed and then crash, and
arrested I.R. after he exited the car. One of the officers also testified about the damage to
the car’s ignition and that it allowed the car to be started without a key. Finally, the
officer testified that he saw an individual wearing a black-hooded sweatshirt driving the
car and that this individual exited the driver’s side of the car after the crash, and the
officer identified I.R. as that individual. I.R. did not testify or present any evidence on
his behalf.
In closing argument, I.R.’s counsel did not dispute that the 2017 Silver Elantra was
stolen and driven without permission or that the car was driven recklessly. Instead,
focusing on testimony that police officers were unable to open the passenger’s side door
after the crash, counsel contended that I.R. had been the passenger and that both he and
the driver had left the car after the crash through the driver’s side. The juvenile court was
not persuaded: It found beyond a reasonable doubt that I.R. was the driver of the car.
The court also found true the allegations that I.R. took or used the car without
authorization, which it characterized as a felony, and that I.R. engaged in reckless
driving, which it characterized as a misdemeanor. Finding as well that I.R. was a minor
and a resident of Santa Clara County, the juvenile adjudged him a ward of the court.
The probation officer reported that the unlawful taking and reckless driving were
I.R.’s first petitioned offenses and that he was a low risk for recidivism. Accordingly, the
3
officer recommended that I.R. be returned to the custody of his parent under the
supervision of the probation officer subject to a number of conditions and required to
complete 10 hours of public service. Defense counsel requested modification of two
conditions and that a general fund fine be struck. The juvenile trial adopted the probation
officer’s recommendations but modified the conditions, agreeing to one of defendant’s
requests, agreeing to another in part, and striking the general fund fine. The juvenile
court also sua sponte struck another requirement recommended by the probation officer.
The following day I.R. filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have carefully reviewed the entire record, including all motions filed by I.R., the
testimony and evidence presented at the contested hearing, the objections made at the
hearing, and the juvenile court’s disposition. We conclude that there is no arguable issue
on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to I.R. and therefore conclude
that appellate counsel has complied fully with her responsibilities. (Wende, 25 Cal.3d at
p. 441.)
III. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s disposition order is affirmed.
4
____________________________
BROMBERG, J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
GREENWOOD, P. J.
____________________________________
DANNER, J.
People v. I.R.
H053614