Filed 1/2/15 In re Armando A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 ARMANDO A., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ARMANDO A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F069407

(Super. Ct. No. 511486)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Shawn D. 

Bessey, Judge.

Carol Koenig, 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 Peña, J.
2

INTRODUCTION

On March 10, 2014, appellant Armando A., who had a prior adjudication pursuant 

to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for one count of felony second-degree 

robbery (Pen. Code, § 211, count 1),

1 waived his rights to a contested hearing and 

admitted his second violation of probation. On April 15, 2014, the juvenile court ordered 

appellant’s commitment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of 

Juvenile Justice (DJJ), for a maximum term of five years. Appellate counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Robbery Adjudication

On August 31, 2012, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 602, alleging appellant committed a robbery (§ 211) on April 17, 2012, and 

an enhancement for committing the robbery with the knowledge that another person was 

personally armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (d)).

2

 On August 31, 2012, appellant 

waived his rights to a contested hearing and admitted the robbery allegation after the 

court advised him of his rights, as well as the consequences of his plea. The 

enhancement was dismissed.

The factual basis for the plea was that on April 17, 2012, Alejandro R. was 

walking down the street with his friend Jesus when appellant and another suspect 

approached them. The second suspect asked Jesus if he was a “‘Scrap.’” Alejandro and 

Jesus ignored them and kept walking. Appellant and the other suspect started following 

Alejandro and Jesus. The second suspect pulled out a silver revolver from his pocket and 

 

1 Unless otherwise designated, statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2

In June 2008, appellant received a citation for a misdemeanor violation of 

section 626.10, subdivision (a). The matter was closed at intake. In April 2009, 

appellant admitted a misdemeanor theft. The case was successfully closed in October 

2009. Appellant received a citation for misdemeanor petty theft in April 2011 and the 

matter was closed at intake.
3

demanded Alejandro’s phone. Alejandro replied that he had no phone or money. 

Appellant demanded Alejandro hand over his iPod or he would be shot. Appellant 

further told Alejandro that if he told the police what happened, appellant would find him 

and shoot him. Alejandro gave his iPod to appellant.

On September 17, 2012, the juvenile court placed appellant on probation upon 

various terms and conditions, including that appellant be committed to juvenile hall for 

214 days, with credit for 154 days already served.

First Probation Violation

Appellant’s aunt and grandfather reported that appellant absconded in early 

November 2012. Appellant was arrested in June 2013 on an outstanding bench warrant. 

On June 10, 2013, a petition alleging a violation of probation was filed alleging these 

facts, as well as information that appellant was armed with a .25-caliber revolver when he 

was arrested. The gun had been reported stolen.

On June 18, 2013, appellant waived his rights to a contested hearing and admitted 

he violated the conditions of his probation. The juvenile court advised appellant that he 

was facing a possible commitment to DJJ. On August 21, 2013, the juvenile court 

continued appellant on probation and ordered him committed to juvenile hall for 365 

days, with credit for 75 days served. On December 24, 2013, appellant was released on 

electronic monitoring.

Second Probation Violation

On December 25, 2013, appellant’s aunt reported that appellant had cut off his 

ankle monitor and left the residence. On February 27, 2014, appellant was arrested while 

fleeing the home of documented gang members. On the same date, a second notice of 

probation violation was filed alleging the above fact and that appellant failed to report to 

his probation officers for the first two months of 2014. On March 10, 2014, appellant 

waived his right to a contested hearing and admitted the violation of his probation. Prior 

to doing so, appellant was advised that he was eligible for DJJ commitment.
4

Because appellant had absconded more than once and was associating with a gang, 

the probation officer recommended that he be placed at DJJ. At the disposition hearing 

on April 15, 2014, appellant’s counsel argued vigorously for a less restrictive 

commitment alternative. The juvenile court noted that appellant had been absent without 

leave for approximately 10 months after his felony adjudication. The court found 

appellant had failed to avail himself of services at the local level. Although appellant did 

well in the controlled environment of juvenile hall, he was on electronic monitoring for 

only a day before removing his electronic monitor and absconding again.

The court found appellant would benefit from the services available at DJJ and 

ordered appellant’s commitment there for the maximum term of confinement of five 

years. The court granted appellant 402 days of custody credits.

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that 

summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the 

record independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) By letter on September 3, 2014, 

we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.

After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no 

reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.

DISPOSITION

The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.