In re C.L.
Filed 12/28/12 In
re C.L. CA1/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 C.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
C.L.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
A136483
(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No.
SJ10015082-02)
Appellant C.L., appeals from a
jurisdictional admission and dispositional order of the
County juvenile court. The appeal is
authorized by Welfare and Institutions Code section 800. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed
a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an
436.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 22, 2010, the District Attorney of Alameda County filed a petition pursuant
to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant
possessed live ammunition in violation of former Penal Code section 12101,
subdivision (b),
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
a misdemeanor. Pursuant to the
recommendation of the probation department, appellant was placed on informal
probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 654.2.) After he successfully
completed that probation, the petition was dismissed and probation terminated
on July 12,
2011.
A little more than a year later, on
August 10, 2012, a new Welfare and Institutions Code section 602
petition was filed alleging one count of carrying a concealed firearm without a
license (§ 25400, subd. (a)(2)) and one count of carrying a loaded
firearm (§ 25850, subd. (a)).
Both counts were alleged as felonies.
Three days later, after plea negotiations, the first count was amended
to a misdemeanor, and appellant entered an admission to carrying a concealed
firearm without a license. Count two was
dismissed, with the facts and the issue of restitution left open to the court
at the time of disposition.
On August 27, 2012, the court declared wardship, removed appellant from the care and
custody of his parents, and committed him “to the care, custody and control of
the Probation Officer to be placed in a suitable foster home or private
institution or group home/county facility under the standard conditions of
probation.†Appellant was placed at Camp Sweeney on September 6, 2012.
Timely
FACTS
The facts relating to the original
Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, charging appellant
with misdemeanor possession of live ammunition, are described in the probation
report essentially as follows: In
response to a report that a person was in the Fruitvale area of Oakland armed with
a gun, officers were dispatched to that area.
A suspect later identified as appellant was seen running in the area
described to the police. Appellant, who
matched a description given the officers, ran into traffic apparently in order
to elude them. After appellant was
apprehended, the police found a bag containing six shotgun shells in the area
from which he had run. Appellant
“spontaneously†said he was with a companion, Steven P., who was found in
possession of a loaded shotgun.
As noted, appellant successfully
completed informal probation. The
probation department noted that appellant was enrolled at Oakland High School
and attending classes, had sought additional help with his school work, had
strong family ties which deterred him from continuing to engage in criminal
activities, was respectful in the home, had demonstrated an ability to work
with community agencies, and had committed no new offenses.
However, on August 8, 2010,
officers on routine patrol saw appellant and another Asian male walking on the
sidewalk on the 1800 block of East 19th Street, about two blocks away from
appellant’s house. As the officers
approached, the two boys looked away. After the officers passed them and then
made a U-turn, the boys began running away.
The officers saw a black pistol in appellant’s hand, which he then threw
away. The weapon was later found,
determined to have been stolen, with seven rounds of live ammunition in the
magazine.
At the dispositional hearing on the
second petition, the prosecutor, arguing against placing appellant back on
probation, pointed out that appellant was “hanging out†at San Antonio Park, a
place notoriously habituated by gangs and the scene of “numerous shootings and
other acts of violence†and immediately “took off running†when he saw the
police. In her view, appellant’s
explanation that he found the gun in a bush was “ridiculous.†The district attorney emphasized appellant
“previously had a quasi weapons charge that was ultimately dismissed, the fact
he’s carrying out a loaded firearm in an area known for gangs, identified as a
prior gang member, talks about drinking every other day, I don’t see just go
home to mom as an appropriate disposition for this case and for this
Minor. I think he needs a higher level
of supervision.â€
Defense counsel asked the court to
place appellant back on probation, with release to his parents and GPS
monitoring. Counsel argued there was no
reason to think appellant was involved in a gang, he had recently successfully
completed informal probation on the earlier offense, had a very supportive
family, was enrolled in school, and was employed in the local youth center.
The trial court focused in the end
on the facts that both of appellant’s offenses involved weapons, and the latest
offense a loaded gun. Acknowledging that
“the family is supportive, and they’re trying to move out of the area,†the
court observed that “meanwhile, he might be getting himself killed or killing
somebody else with a 9 millimeter.â€
The court also noted that appellant “got the benefit of the doubt†on
the prior offense but “[h]e doesn’t get the benefit of doubt at this point. We’re trying to keep him and other people
alive in that area.†In short, the
declaration of wardship and placement in the care and custody of the probation
department at Camp Sweeney was predicated on three factors: the weapon-related nature of appellant’s past
and present offenses, his presence at the time of the present offense in an
area in which gang activity commonly took place, and the occurrence of the
instant offense shortly after appellant completed probation on the earlier
offense.
Timely notice of appeal was filed on
August 31,
2012.
DISCUSSION
Where an adult appellant has pled not guilty or no contest to an
offense, the scope of reviewable issues is restricted to matters based on
constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the
proceedings leading to the plea: guilt or innocence are not included. (People
v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895-896; § 1237.5.) The jurisdictional admission of juvenile in a
proceeding pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 is in
many ways the functional equivalent of a not guilty or no contest plea by an
criminal defendant. However, minors
charged with violations of the Juvenile Court Law (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 200 et seq.) are not “defendants,†and they do not plead “guilty,†nor
are “ ‘adjudications of juvenile wrongdoing “criminal
convictions[;]†’ †thus the statutorily prescribed procedures
applicable to a criminal defendant who appeals from a judgment of conviction
based on a plea of guilty or no contest (§ 1237.5) do not apply to minors. (In re
Joseph B. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 952, 955.)
Nevertheless, the adult standard of nonjurisdictional irregularities and
issues going to guilt or innocence have been applied to juvenile appeals. (In re
John B. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 477.)
This district has held that, because
a juvenile is deemed intelligent enough to appreciate the consequences of
admitting having committed a crime, a juvenile also has the capacity to waive
the right to appeal; provided that a
specified disposition was an integral part of the plea agreement. (In re
Uriah R. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1159.) Such a specified disposition was not,
however, an integral part of the plea agreement in this case; the disposition
was open to the court and appellant knew only that “[t]he maximum possible
consequence for this admission is up to one year in a locked facility.†Furthermore, the rights appellant was told he
would be giving up by agreeing to the negotiated disposition did not include
the right to appeal from the dispositional order. So far as the record shows, appellant was
never asked to and did not waive the right to appeal that order.
think appellant was told or understood that his admission constituted a waiver
of his right to challenge the dispositional order as an abuse of
discretion. Accordingly, appellant’s
admission does not relieve us of the need to inquire whether the dispositional
order arguably constituted an abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion.
The record provides no reason to
think appellant was mentally incompetent to stand trial or to understand the
admonitions he received prior to admitting that he carried a concealed firearm
on his person without having a license to do so and thereby committed the
misdemeanor offense defined in section 25400, subsection (a)(2).
Appellant was at all times
represented by able counsel who protected his rights and interests.
Appellant stipulated to a factual
basis for his admission and the record satisfies this court that there is such
a basis.
The admonitions given appellant at
the time he made his admission fully conformed with the requirements of
238 and In re Tahl (1969)
1 Cal.3d 122, save that he was properly not advised of a right to jury
trial, and his admission was knowing and voluntary.
The disposition is authorized by law
and, in the circumstances, does not constitute an abuse of discretion by the
juvenile court.
Our
arguable issues that require further briefing, the judgment, which includes the
disposition, is affirmed.
_________________________
Kline,
P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Haerle, J.
_________________________
Richman, J.
Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
name="_ftn2" title=""> [2]
The admonitions given appellant at the hearing on August 13, 2012, before
he made his admission were delivered not by the court but, at the request of
the court, by defense counsel. The
rights counsel told appellant he would be giving up by his admission were
only: the right to require the
prosecution “to prove all of the charges in the petition are true beyond a
reasonable doubt,†“the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses
against you,†“the right to remain silent,†and “the right to present a defense
[including] the right of using the court’s subpoena power to help you bring in
evidence and witnesses to help you in the case.â€
