Opinion ID: 1148653
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: During evening hours defendant and another young man entered a Los Angeles restaurant. They paused momentarily and then defendant, who was wielding a pistol, covered his face with a nylon stocking mask which he had pulled from under his cap. Defendant ordered the cashier to step aside and his confederate opened the cash register and removed money from the drawer. As the two young men departed they were pursued by restaurant employee James Fang. A gunshot was heard and Fang was brought wounded and unconscious back into the restaurant. He subsequently died as the result of a gunshot wound. During the juvenile court hearing on the issue of defendant's fitness for treatment within the facilities of that court, the referee recited that he had read and considered, in addition to the allegations contained in the section 602 petitions, a report from the San Francisco Juvenile Court Probation Office. It is implicit in the hearing transcript that the referee had also read the probation officer's report in the instant matter. It appears from the San Francisco report that defendant had been associated with a major San Francisco Chinese youth gang, that he had been recruited by the gang to act as a hit-man, that he had been charged in San Francisco Juvenile Court proceedings with possession of stolen property and an illegal knife, and that he was suspected of involvement in two Chinese gang homicides. Defendant had been released from detention in San Francisco to accompany his mother to Los Angeles, and the section 602 petition which had been filed in San Francisco had been transferred to Los Angeles for disposition. The Los Angeles County Probation Officer's report recommended that defendant was not a fit subject for consideration under the provisions of juvenile court law. It further declared that the allegations in the section 602 petition, if true, indicated that defendant was a serious and ongoing threat to the community; that while defendant had minimal police contact, authorities considered him to be highly sophisticated; that defendant had not been in school for some time and that he appeared to give little more than lip service to the prospect of returning to school or seeking job training; that defendant's father was completely unable to set standards or controls for him; that defendant had virtually emancipated himself from the home of his parents; that, according to a Los Angeles Police Department source, defendant was suspected of involvement in another shooting in Los Angeles; and that, according to the same source, four handguns and three shotguns were found in defendant's residence at the time of his arrest. Brief arguments were then presented at the hearing by counsel and the matter was submitted whereupon the court, utilizing a standard court form, declared: The Court finds this minor unfit; certifies this minor to adult court. The minute order included a finding contained in the form to the effect that [t]he Court finds that minor was 16 years of age or over and that the minor would not be amenable to the care, treatment and training program available through the facilities of the Juvenile Court. [5]