Filed 3/25/14 In re Alejandro 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ALEJAN DR O R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ALEJANDRO R. , Defendant and Appellant. F067896
(Super. Ct. No. 13CEJ600526

- 1 )



### OPINION

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary R.
Orozco , Judge. Stephanie L. Gunther , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

- ooOoo

-

* Before Levy , Acting P.J., Gomes , J., and Franson, J.2

The court adjudged appellant, A lejandro R., a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst.
Co de , § 602) after it sustained allegations chargin g him with robbery (Pen. Code
, § 211) , 1 resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)( 1)) , and a gang enhance ment (§ 186.22, subd

. (b)(1)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 , we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 11, 2013, at approximately 5:50 p.m.
, 15

- year

- old C.B. was walking
home from school in Reedley when appellant and another male juvenile rode up behind him on bicycles and a ppellant said
, “W hat ’ s up ene?” 2 Appellant’s companion stopped
behind C.B. as appellant got off his bicycle and stated, “ I like that neckla ce, let me have
it.” C.B. asked, “ Why?” Appellant replied
, “ I ain’t messing around, take it off. ” After
C.B. handed appellant the necklace, appellant told C.B. to give him the white Nike shoes
C.B. was wearing and C.B. complied

. A ppellant and the other male then rode away o n their bikes. As appellant rode off he y elled, “Norte.”
C.B. was scared during the encounter with appella nt because appellant lift ed his shirt as if he was concealing a gun or knife and he threatened to “get down” with C.B. , which C.B. understood to m ean that appellant would fight C.B. A dditionally
, a few months earlier appellant told C. B . he had a g u n and t hreatened to kill C. B .’s brother with
it. 3

O n June 12, 2013, Reedley Police Officer Robert Macedo arrested appellant at his
house. When Officer Macedo attempted to handcuff him
, appellant resisted the officer as

1 All further statutory references to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 According to C. B . “ene” is a slang reference for a N orteño gan g member.

3 At appellant’s jurisdictional hearing, Fresno County Sheriff’s Deputy James Lyman testified as a gang expert that appellant was a doc umented gang member and that he committed the robbery of C.B. for the benefit of his gang.3

he attempted to grab appellant’s hands. W hen Officer Macedo and an officer who arrived on the scene attempted to pat search appellant for weapons, appellant lunged head
first at the other officer
, causing both of them to fall to the ground. On July 2 , 2013, the district attorney filed an amende d petition charging appellant with robbery (count 1) and resisting arrest (count 2) and a gang enh a ncement in count 1. On July 3, 2013, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court sustained all the allegations in the petition. On July 24, 2013, the court placed appellant on probation until January 24, 2015
, set his maximum term of confinement at 15 years 4 months
, and committed him to the
New H orizons Program for a maximum period of 365 days. Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a bri ef which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. ( People v. Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this
court’s invitation to submit additional br iefing. Following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.