Filed 3/6/13 In re Justin Y. CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JUSTIN Y., a Pe rson Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JUSTIN Y., Defendant and Appellant. F065292 (Super. Ct. No. JL003666)



### OPINION

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Merced County. David W. Moranda, Judge. Kelly Babineau, under appo intment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J ., Gomes, J. and Franson, J.2 The court continued appellant, Justin Y ., as a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after he admitted allegations charging him with carrying a loaded firearm in public (former Pen. C ode, § 12031, subd. (a)(1) 1 ) and street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), and the court found true a llegations that he violated a previous order of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777). Following indepe ndent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROC EDURAL HISTORY On October 22, 2011, Merced police officers responded to a call of a fight at a liquor store. The officers checked the area and saw appe llant and another male, both documented members of a local st reet gang, sitting on chairs in front of a residence where they did not live. As the officers ques tioned two other gang me mbers who may have been involved in the fight, appellant and the other male stood up. An officer told them they needed to sit down and they both sat down on the curb. The officer then found a loaded SIG Sauer .40-caliber handgun with the serial number removed, under the chair where appellant had been s itting. Appellant and the ot her gang member were both arrested. On October 25, 2011, the district attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition charging appellant with carryin g a loaded firearm in public (count 1), street terrorism (count 2), receiving stolen property (c ount 3/§ 496, subd. (a)), obliterating the identification of a firearm (c ount 4/§ 12090), violating a pr evious order of the court (count 5), and a gang enha ncement in count 1 (§ 1 86.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). On November 9, 2011, appellant admitted the carrying a loaded firearm and street terrorism offenses and the court found that he violated a previous order of the court based

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further stat utory references are to the Penal Code. Former section 12031 was repeal ed on January 1, 2012, but its provisions were continued without substantive change in section 25850. The repealed statute was in effect at all times relevant here.3 on his admission of those offenses. In exch ange for his plea, the court dismissed the remaining counts and enhancements. On November 30, 2011, the court committed appella nt to the Bear Creek Academy Short Term Program, Level III. At the hearing, the prosecutor informed the court that the victim of the stolen gun was requesting $600 for the loss of the gun, which had to be destroyed because it did not have serial numbe rs. After defense counsel objected that appellant should not be require d to pay restitution for the gun because he did not plead to the receiving st olen property charge , the court ordered that the matter be set for a restituti on hearing. On February 16, 2012, the probation de partment filed documents that supported a restitution amount of $713.99 to the victim for the loss of his handgun and two cartridges that were taken during the burglar y when the gun was stolen. On May 9, 2012, the court ordered ap pellant to pay the confidential victim $713.99. Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief 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 briefing. Following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.