1

Filed 2/25/21 In re R.W. CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re R.W., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

______________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

R.W., 

Defendant and Appellant.

 A160353

 

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. J2000291)

 

 

In July 2019, following three drive-by shootings and a separate 

incident resulting in seventeen-year-old R.W.’s arrest for possession of 

a firearm, the San Joaquin County District Attorney filed an amended 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging R.W. had 

committed numerous felony offenses (including ten counts of attempted 

murder in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 

§§ 186.22, subd. (b), 187, 644)).

At the April 15, 2020 jurisdictional hearing, the San Joaquin 

County Superior Court accepted R.W.’s waiver of rights and his no 

contest plea to assault with a firearm on a person (Pen. Code, § 245, 

subd. (a)(2)) as a lesser offense to one attempted murder count; all 
2

remaining counts and enhancements in the amended petition were 

dismissed. The case was transferred for disposition to Contra Costa 

County where R.W.’s mother had moved the family. The Contra Costa

County Superior Court (hereinafter the juvenile court) accepted the 

transfer. 

At the May 5, 2020 disposition hearing, the juvenile court

accepted the probation department’s recommendations. R.W. was 

adjudged to be an indefinite ward of the court, removed from parental 

custody, and committed to a county institution under probation 

supervision for a term not to exceed his maximum custodial time of 

three years and 21 days (four years with credit for time served of 299 

days), or until the age of 21, whichever occurred first. The court

directed R.W. to comply with certain probation conditions, including 

that he participate and complete the Youthful Offender Treatment 

Program (YOTP) while detained in juvenile hall, and comply with 

numerous gang conditions. 

The juvenile court specifically rejected R.W.’s request for release 

to his mother’s custody on electronic monitoring. It found that R.W.’s

commitment to a county institution was required based on the extreme 

seriousness of the offense1, his ongoing risk to the community given his 

gang affiliation, and his need for supervision and appropriate services 

to rehabilitate him within the time frame of the court’s jurisdiction. 

1 While R.W. refused to speak with the probation officer, the 

probation officer reported that R.W. was “linked” to “four . . . horrific

crimes: three shootings and a car pursuit occurring in a short time 

frame.” When questioned by the police after his arrest, R.W. stated he 

“hung out” with gang members and he admitted he was the driver of a 

car involved in one drive-by incident in which the victim was shot and 

the victim’s home and neighborhood were sprayed with bullets. 
3

The court specifically commented that it could not underscore enough 

how serious the case was - R.W.’s “extremely grave” behavior could 

have resulted not only in the death of others but his own death and he

could have been committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice. 

According to the court the case was about as “grave” as circumstances

could be regarding “this type of activity.” 

The juvenile court rejected R.W.’s objection to his participation 

and completion of the YOTP at juvenile hall, noting that our colleagues 

in Division Five had affirmed the court’s authority to impose that 

condition in In re J.C. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 741. (See also In re I.M. 

(2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 929, 932-936 [applying In re J.C. in upholding 

probation condition directing participation and completion of similar

Girls in Motion program at juvenile hall].) 

The juvenile court also imposed numerous conditions focusing on 

R.W.’s gang affiliation. Specifically, he was prohibited from associating 

with a gang, using gang insignia, or using any electronic device or 

social media networking site to transmit or display gang images; he 

lodged no specific objections to these conditions. R.W. was also 

required to submit to warrant or warrantless searches of all his 

electronic devices and social media accounts and applications and to 

provide his access codes to facilitate those searches (“electronic search 

condition”).

The juvenile court found that information in the probation 

department’s disposition report (report) required R.W. to submit to 

electronic searches and provide access codes to enable the probation 

officer to monitor R.W.’s compliance with the terms of his probation. 

The report, admitted into evidence without objection, indicated that
4

after R.W.’s arrest the police secured a warrant and recovered 

photographs in a “file” on his cell phone. The court mentioned at the 

hearing that the “download of digital images” showed, in part, “a 

variety of pictures where [R.W.] or other individuals were holding 

firearms and displaying what appeared to be gang images.” The report 

also indicated “the officers recovered three social media files,” in the 

form of a photograph and videos, depicting R.W. holding a black and 

tan Glock handgun similar to the gun recovered at the time of his 

arrest; in one video taken inside a car, one person’s arm is seen 

extending into the video holding a black and tan Glock pistol, the gun is 

pointed at another youth as R.W. is heard to say, “ ‘I will really blow 

you bitch’ ”; and another video is “tagged” in the Instagram name of a 

youth depicted in the photographs found on the cell phone. 

R.W. objected to the electronic search condition by citing to In re

Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.), in which the court struck 

an electronics search condition on the ground it “was not reasonably 

related to the probationer’s future criminality” (id. at pp. 1114, 1128). 

The Ricardo P. court held, however, that an electronic search condition 

may be imposed to deter future criminality if it is based on a 

probationer’s offense or personal history, citing with approval among 

other cases, People v. Ebertowski (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1170 

(Ebertowksi). (Ricardo P., supra, at pp. 1128-1129.) In Ebertowski, the 

defendant was found to be a criminal street gang member, convicted of 

a gang-related offense, and who had previously used social media sites 

to promote his gang. (Ebertowski, supra, at p. 1173.) The appellate 

court upheld password access to facilitate searches of all electronic 

devices and social media accounts as necessary to deter future 
5

criminality. (Id. at pp. 1176-1177.) Based on the reasoning in 

Ebertowski, the juvenile court could appropriately impose the electronic 

search provision as it “related to [a] . . . gang related [crime] and [was] 

designed to allow the probation officer to monitor [R.W.’s] gang 

associations and activities . . . necessarily related to his future 

criminality.” (Ibid.)

Appellate counsel has filed a brief asking us to independently 

review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Appellate 

counsel has averred R.W. was advised of his right to file a 

supplemental brief, but he has not filed such a brief. Having 

independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues 

that require further briefing and affirm the commitment order.

DISPOSITION

The order of commitment is affirmed. 
6

_________________________

Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Fujisaki, Acting P.J.

_________________________

Wiseman, J.*

A160353

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate

District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 

of the California Constitution.