In re Sergio R.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/3/13  In
re Sergio R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 
>

In re SERGIO R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,                           v.   SERGIO R.,   Defendant and Appellant.	F065351   (Super. Ct. No. 512815)     >OPINION

 

THE COURThref="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

            APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Stanislaus
County.  Nan Cohan Jacobs, Judge.

            Dawn M.
Schock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Office of
the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

 

            It was alleged in a juvenile
wardship petition filed May 4, 2012,href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">^[1] that appellant, Sergio R., a minor, committed
felony unlawful driving or taking of
vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a)
(section 10851(a)).  On May 14, appellant
admitted the allegation.

            In a second
wardship petition filed on May 7, it was alleged appellant possessed a vehicle
key with the intent to use it in the commission of an unlawful act, a
misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 466.7) and another violation of section
10851(a).  On May 23, the petition was
amended to allege the latter offense as a misdemeanor, and appellant admitted
both allegations. 

            Also on May
23, a third wardship petition was filed. 
In that petition it was alleged appellant committed felony assault by
means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd.
(a)(4)) and resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, §
148, subd. (a)(1)), a misdemeanor.  On
June 25, at a jurisdiction hearing, the court found both allegations true. 

            On August
21, at a disposition hearing covering all three petitions, the court declared
the section 10851(a) violation alleged in the first petition to be a felony,
the section 10851(a) violation alleged in the second petition to be a
misdemeanor, and the aggravated assault alleged in the third petition to be a
misdemeanor; readjudged appellant a ward of the court; ordered he serve 270
days in juvenile hall, with 112 days’ credit; and continued him on
probation. 

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">opening brief which summarizes the
pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that
this court independently review the record. 
(People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d. 436.)    Appellant has not
responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.  We
affirm.

>FACTS

May 4 Petition

            The Dispositional Social Study (DSS), filed July 13,
states the following:  “[Appellant] was
observed driving a vehicle that was reported stolen.  [He] was detained and [he] indicated he was
not given permission to occupy or drive the vehicle.”

May 7 Petition

            The DSS
states the following:  In San Jose,
police officers observed appellant driving a car with a “non functioning tail
light.”  The officers “initiated a
traffic stop,” but appellant “made a few quick left turns and eventually parked
the vehicle and tried to walk away.”  
The officers apprehended appellant near the vehicle and, upon contacting
the vehicle’s owner, learned the vehicle had been stolen.  Appellant “admitted under Miranda to driving
the vehicle.”  

May 23 Petition

            Stanislaus
County Probation Corrections Officer Matthew Ford testified he was on duty in
juvenile hall on the evening of May 14, when, appellant, who had been allowed
out of his room to get some Tylenol and was on his way back to his room, ran up
to another minor, who was seated, and “began throwing punches,” striking the
victim on the side of the head. 

            Officer
Ford further testified to the following: 
He “issued the cover command.” 
Minors hearing this command are required “to get down on the floor ....”  Appellant however, failed to comply, so Ford
grabbed him by his ponytail and forced him to the ground, where appellant
continued to struggle.  Other officers
soon arrived on the scene, and, along with Ford, were able to subdue appellant.


            A video
depicting the events described above was played in open court and admitted into
evidence.  

            The parties
stipulated that a medical report “indicates that there were zero lacerations to
the victim, no injuries
to the victim, and the victim denied any pain.” 
 

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the
record, we have concluded that no reasonably href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

            The
judgment is affirmed.