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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 Person 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 Superior Court of Merced County. David W. 

Moranda, Judge. 

 Kelly Babineau, 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 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. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1)1) and street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. 

(a)), and the court found true allegations that he violated a previous order of the court 

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777). Following independent review of the record pursuant to 

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL 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 appellant and another male, both 

documented members of a local street gang, sitting on chairs in front of a residence where 

they did not live. As the officers questioned two other gang members 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 sitting. Appellant and the other gang member were both 

arrested. 

 On October 25, 2011, the district attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition 

charging appellant with carrying a loaded firearm in public (count 1), street terrorism 

(count 2), receiving stolen property (count 3/§ 496, subd. (a)), obliterating the 

identification of a firearm (count 4/§ 12090), violating a previous order of the court 

(count 5), and a gang enhancement in count 1 (§ 186.22, 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 statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

Former section 12031 was repealed 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 exchange for his plea, the court dismissed the 

remaining counts and enhancements. 

 On November 30, 2011, the court committed appellant 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 numbers. After defense counsel 

objected that appellant should not be required to pay restitution for the gun because he 

did not plead to the receiving stolen property charge, the court ordered that the matter be 

set for a restitution hearing. 

 On February 16, 2012, the probation department 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 burglary when the gun was stolen. 

 On May 9, 2012, the court ordered appellant 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.