1

Filed 3/12/24 P. v. E.C. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E082174

(Super.Ct.No. J294916)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Tony Raphael, 

Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

E.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order adjudging him a ward of 

the court and committing him to a term of confinement at Gateway to Arise (Arise), a

secure youth treatment facility. We appointed counsel to represent E.C. on appeal, and 

counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of 

the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. 

California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In November 2022, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a petition 

under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), as to E.C. As amended, 

the petition alleged that E.C. committed misdemeanor interference with a wireless 

communication device (Pen. Code, § 591.5; unlabeled statutory citations refer to this 

code), felony second degree robbery (§ 211), misdemeanor battery (§ 242), misdemeanor 

resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer or emergency medical technician 

(§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and felony grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)).

The petition arose from an incident between E.C. and his sister. E.C.’s sister told 

the police that E.C. had “repeatedly lunged towards her with a closed fist as if he was 

going to hit her.” When she tried to call 911, E.C. tried to take the phone from her to 

prevent her from calling. He then grabbed her wrist and ripped the gold chains from her 

neck, which caused some abrasions on her arm and neck. E.C. left, and his mother 

followed him and demanded the chain back. E.C.’s sister wanted E.C. prosecuted, so she 
3

gave the police a photograph of him and described his clothing. When the police found

E.C. at a nearby intersection, he fled but was eventually taken into custody. 

E.C. admitted the felony grand theft allegation, and the court declared him a ward 

of the court, detained him, and placed him in the custody of his mother (upon his release 

from juvenile hall) on the terms and conditions stated in the probation report. The court 

also ordered that the probation department refer E.C. to the court for individualized 

treatment of adolescents. At a specially scheduled hearing the next week, the court 

ordered E.C. released from juvenile hall. 

In May 2023, the district attorney filed a subsequent petition under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a). As amended, the subsequent petition 

alleged that E.C. committed felony second degree robbery (§ 211), felony carjacking 

(§ 215, subd. (a)), felony evasion of an officer with willful disregard for safety 

(Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), felony attempted kidnapping (§§ 664, 207, subd. (a)), 

and felony threats (§ 422, subd. (a)). 

At the detention hearing, the court found that E.C.’s continued presence in his 

parents’ home was contrary to his welfare and continued his detention in juvenile hall

pending further hearing on the matter. At the pretrial hearing, E.C. admitted the robbery 

allegation, and the court granted the People’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts. 

The probation department reported that according to the police report, E.C. and a 

co-participant lured a victim through Instagram to meet them in a parking garage. Upon 

the victim’s arrival, E.C.’s co-participant demanded the victim’s belongings at gunpoint. 
4

E.C. and his co-participant then began to hit the victim, causing the victim several cuts to 

his face, neck, and ears. E.C.’s co-participant demanded the victim’s car and directed the 

victim to get into the car, but the victim refused. E.C. got into the driver’s seat of the 

victim’s car and fled the garage with his co-participant. After being taken into custody, 

E.C. agreed to show officers where he had thrown the gun out of the car’s passenger 

window.

In its disposition report, the probation department recommended that E.C. be 

committed to Arise because, among other reasons, “his crimes [were] becoming more 

violent and including random victims.” At the contested disposition hearing, the court 

considered whether an unsecured placement was an option but expressed concern that 

E.C.’s most recent offense involved “deception” and was “very sophisticated and 

dangerous.” The court adopted the department’s analysis in the disposition report and 

committed E.C. to Arise with a baseline term of three years and a maximum term of 

confinement of three years eight months.

DISCUSSION

E.C.’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief raising one potential issue: whether 

the court erred by committing E.C. to Arise. Counsel asked that we conduct an 

independent review of the record. (See In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 117-

119 [Wende procedure applies in the juvenile delinquency context to a minor’s first 

appeal as of right].) We advised E.C. that he had 30 days to file a personal supplemental 

brief, and we received no response.
5

We have independently reviewed the record and found no arguable error that 

would result in a disposition more favorable to E.C. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 

106, 118-119; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Accordingly, we affirm the 

dispositional order.

DISPOSITION

The dispositional order is affirmed.

MENETREZ

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

CODRINGTON

J.