In re Rafael Z.
Filed 6/21/13 In re Rafael Z. CA1/5
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIVE
In re RAFAEL Z., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RAFAEL Z.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A137724
(Contra
Costa County
Super. Ct.
No. J12-01599)
Appellant
Rafael Z. was found by the juvenile court to have committed a
§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)).
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] He was placed at a youth ranch facility, but
absconded from that facility the following day.
He later admitted a probation violation resulting from that escape and
was ordered detained in a different youth facility. Rafael has filed a timely
jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
Assigned
counsel has submitted a Wende
counsel has been unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also has submitted a declaration
confirming that Rafael has been advised of his right to personally file a
supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s
attention. No supplemental brief has
been submitted. As required, we have
independently reviewed the record. (
109–110.)
We
find no arguable issues and therefore
affirm.
I. Background
Jurisdictional
hearings were held in the juvenile court on December 13 and December 24, 2012, and the following
evidence adduced:
On
November 17, 2012, at
about 10:00 a.m., 14-year-old Juan
was walking home with two shopping bags of clothing he had just purchased. An older blue Honda pulled to the curb in
front of him and Rafael’s codefendant, Jesus C., exited the car, said something
to Juan about “talking shit.†Juan saw
Rafael exit the car sometime after Jesus.
Jesus demanded that Juan empty his pockets. Jesus punched Juan, knocking him to the
ground, while someone that Juan believed was Rafael rifled through Juan’s
pockets. Rafael and Jesus took Juan’s
cell phone, knife, a photo of his girlfriend, hat, and the bags of
clothing. Rafael and Jesus then returned
to the vehicle and drove away towards Detroit Avenue
in Concord, California.
Juan
walked home, called the police and provided the officers with a description of
his attackers. He told the investigating
officer that one of the people who robbed him was known as “Stomper†or “Little
Stomper.†The officer retrieved a
photograph of Rafael from a police database based on the moniker, and Juan identified
the photograph as “Stomper.†At about 11:45 a.m., Rafael and Jesus were stopped by
the Concord police walking on the
street approximately one street over from the scene of the robbery. Juan was brought to the scene and identified
both Jesus and Rafael as the people who robbed him.
A
greenish-gray folding knife was found on Rafael’s person. Juan told the investigating officers that
Rafael was the one that had told him to empty his pockets, and that Rafael had
used the knife in the robbery, holding it in his left hand. At trial, Juan admitted that the knife was
his, and said that it had been taken from his pocket during the robbery. The stolen phone and clothing were not
recovered, and the officers could not locate the blue Honda.
Jesus
testified. He admitted to being in a
friend’s car on the day of the incident, and initiating a fight with Juan
because Juan had been “talking smack†about him. He denied taking anything from Juan. Jesus said that Rafael was present, but did
not participate in the confrontation with Juan.
The
court found Juan to be a credible witness
and found Jesus not to be credible. The
court found beyond a reasonable doubt that both defendants were guilty of
second degree robbery. The court
declined to find true allegations against Rafael that he personally used a
knife in the robbery (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and that the crime was
committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22,
subd. (b)(1)).
At
the time of the incident, Rafael was 16 years old and living with his mother,
three sisters and nephew in Concord. His father’s whereabouts were unknown. Rafael had no prior juvenile court history.
The
probation department’s report and recommendations noted that Rafael had been
expelled from Pleasant Hill Middle
School for punching a teacher. He admitted using marijuana, and said he did
so on the date of the robbery. Rafael
met the criteria for special education due to an emotional disturbance and
specific learning disability and had an individualized education program. Rafael admitted to the probation officer that
he associated with members of the Sureños gang.
While in custody, juvenile hall staff reported that Rafael exhibited
defiant and disrespectful behavior, had threatened other residents in his unit,
and was placed on maximum security after he attacked another resident. Noting that Rafael’s mother was in denial
about his offense and his gang membership, the probation officer recommended an
out-of-home placement in a “highly structured setting.†The court determined the maximum period of
confinement to be five years, less credit for actual custodial time.
Rafael’s
attorney requested placement in to the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility
(OAYRF), a Contra
Costa County youth ranch. The
probation department sought a more restrictive placement that could accommodate
Rafael’ special education needs, but the court stated that it wanted to give
Rafael “a chance†at the less restrictive ranch facility. The court found that Rafael’s welfare
required that he be removed from the custody of his mother (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 726, subd. (a)(3)) and committed Rafael to OAYRF for a period
not to exceed 12 months, plus an additional 90-day conditional release/parole
period. The trial court noted that
during the jurisdictional hearing members or friends of Rafael’s family had made
gang signs and that both defendants “have gang problems.†The court found that it was appropriate to
impose probation conditions including gang orders. The court imposed probation conditions
including that Rafael: (1) be at
his legal residence between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless
accompanied by a parent or guardian; (2) not use or possess illegal drugs
or alcohol and submit to testing; (3) not use or possess weapons or
replica guns; (4) submit his person, property, any vehicle under his
control, and his residence to search and seizure by any peace officer any time
of the day or night with or without a warrant; (5) avoid gang
associations, colors, clothing, insignias, signs, paraphernalia and activities;
(6) not be on a school campus unless enrolled in the school; (7) provide
restitution in an amount to be determined; (8) attend and participate in
contact with Jesus or the victim; and (10) write an apology letter to the
victim within 30 days. The court also
imposed a restitution fine of $300.
Within
a day of his arrival at OAYRF, Rafael escaped.
On January 16, 2013,
a Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 probation violation was filed
and a bench warrant was issued. Rafael
surrendered to police on January 26,
2013. On February 4, 2013, Rafael, represented
by counsel, admitted the probation violation.
The court requested an updated disposition report. On March
18, 2013, the court again found that custody in the home was
contrary to Rafael’s welfare and ordered him detained in a different
out-of-home placement called Courage to Change.
It imposed the same probation conditions.
On
January 23, 2013, Rafael
filed a notice of appeal from the
findings and orders of December 24,
2012 (jurisdiction), and January
14, 2013 (disposition).
II. Discussion
We
find no arguable issues. Rafael was
represented by competent counsel throughout the proceedings. “ ‘The decision of the juvenile court or
superior court may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the court
abused its discretion in its commitment of the minor. A reviewing court must indulge in all
reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court, and such
findings will not be disturbed on appeal when there is
them. [Citations.]’ †(In re
Jose R. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 55, 59.)
In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a court’s
findings, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the
prosecution to see if any rational trier of fact could have been so
persuaded. (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 996–997.) It is the exclusive province of the trier of
fact to determine the credibility of a witness and to resolve evidentiary
inconsistencies, and we must defer to the factfinder’s credibility
resolutions. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) Our examination of the record indicates the
requisite evidentiary support for the findings made by the trial court.
A
juvenile court’s dispositional order may be reversed on appeal only upon a
showing the court abused its discretion.
“ ‘ “We must indulge all reasonable inferences to support the
decision of the juvenile court and will not disturb its findings when there is
substantial evidence to support them.†’
[Citation.]†(
96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1330.) We find
no abuse of discretion in the out of home placement ordered by the court, or in
the probation conditions imposed. A
juvenile court has broad discretion in formulating probation conditions, and
may impose “ ‘ “any reasonable condition that is ‘fitting and proper
to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of
the ward enhanced.’ †’
[Citations.]†(
Code, § 730, subd. (b).)
III. Disposition
The judgment is
affirmed.
_________________________
Bruiniers,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Simons,
Acting P. J.
_________________________
Needham,
J.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
