G.
Filed 2/1/13 In re Miguel G. CA5
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
CALIFORNIA
In re MIGUEL
G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MIGUEL G.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F065213
(Super. Ct.
No. JJD066093)
APPEAL from a judgment
of the Superior Court of Tulare County.
Juliet L. Boccone, Judge.
Erik R. Beauchamp,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State
Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The court adjudged
appellant, Miguel G., a ward of the court after it sustained allegations in a
petition charging him with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and a gang
enhancement (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). Following independent review of the record
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm.
On March 12, 2012, just
before noon, Tracy Canadry was on the second floor of her house when she called
911 after seeing three males next door in Patricia Alvarado’s backyard peering
into Alvarado’s house. A short time
later, one of the males got inside the house, opened a sliding door, and let
the two other males in. Later, she saw
the three males run out of the house through the sliding door. The males attempted to jump over a retaining
wall, but instead they got off the wall in Canadry’s backyard. However, her dogs chased them and the males
began jumping over backyard fences.
Between 30 and 45 minutes later, Canadry was taken to two locations
where she identified appellant, Renato Hernandez (Renato) and Adrian Hernandez
(Adrian) as the males she saw in her neighbor’s yard.
Patricia
Alvarado returned to her house around noon and found the upper pane of a side
window broken, the window and a sliding glass door open, and a bag full of her
children’s toys on the floor. Alvarado
looked around the house and found an iPod missing from an upstairs bedroom, a
file cabinet that was open and had been rummaged through, and that the television
and video game console in the living room had been unplugged from the
wall.
Visalia
Police Detective Sean O’Rafferty was on his way to the scene of the burglary
when he detained and subsequently arrested appellant and Renato as they walked
away from Alvarado’s house. Also
arrested that day were Adrian and Ezequiel C. and Gonzalo Tejeda, both of whom
were riding around the neighborhood in a pickup during the burglary. Appellant had a cut on his left hand.
During an
in-custody interview with Detective O’Rafferty, appellant admitted breaking the
window to the victim’s residence, but claimed he only acted as a look-out while
Renato actually committed the burglary.
However, upon further questioning, appellant admitted that the blood
found in the residence was probably his.
Officer O’Rafferty
also interviewed Ezequiel who told him that he was with the other males who
were arrested and that they came from Delano.
According to Ezequiel, Adrian and Tejeda stayed in the truck while he,
appellant, and Renato actually committed the burglary. Ezequiel, however, claimed that he acted as a
look-out and did not enter Alvarado’s house.
On March
14, 2012, the district attorney filed a petition charging appellant with first
degree burglary (count 1), and street terrorism (count 2/Pen. Code, § 186.22,
subd. (a)). Count 1 also alleged a gang
enhancement (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)).
At
appellant’s jurisdictional hearing, Visalia Police Detective Adam Collins
testified as a gang expert that appellant and the four males arrested with him
were gang members. Detective Collins
also testified that a burglary committed by five gang members, in the manner
that appellant and his co-participants committed the charged burglary, would be
committed with the intent to promote, further, or assist a criminal street
gang. Nevertheless, at the end of the
prosecution case, the court granted defense counsel’s motion to dismiss the
street terrorism count (count 2).
On June 20,
2012, the court aggregated time from prior petitions, set appellant’s maximum
term of confinement at seven years eight months, and committed him to the Youth
Correctional Center for a minimum period of 240 days to a maximum period of 365
days.
Appellant’s appellate counsel has
filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises
no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (Wende,
invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following
an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual
or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
