Court Opinion

ID: 9651969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:04:45.666438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:27.988931
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/23/23 In re A.M. CA2/6

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

 In re A.M., a Person Coming                                    2d Juv. No. B319211
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                (Super. Ct. No. FJ56986)
                                                                (Los Angeles County)

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 A.M.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      A.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order sustaining
allegations he possessed a concealed firearm (Penal Code,
§ 25400, subd. (a)(2))1 and carried a loaded and unregistered
handgun (§ 25850, subd. (a)). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) He
contends the juvenile court erred by allowing the People to add

         1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal

Code unless otherwise stated.
two felony counts to the petition without adequate notice. He
also contends the court erred by denying his motion to suppress
evidence. We affirm.
           FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Police received an anonymous report of suspected gang
activity at an abandoned house in South Central Los Angeles.
Officers drove to the address, parked down the street, and
approached on foot. A gate blocked the driveway and partially
obstructed their view of the front yard. One of the officers
spotted A.M. crouched behind the gate and greeted him. A.M
immediately fled toward the back of the property, clutching the
waistband of his pants while he ran.
       The officers set up a “perimeter” because they suspected
A.M. was carrying a gun. They found him hiding under a car and
detained him while they searched for a weapon. They recovered
a 9 millimeter handgun nearby with an extended magazine
containing 24 rounds of ammunition.
       The People filed a wardship petition alleging one
misdemeanor count of possessing a firearm (count one; § 29610).
They amended twice. The first amended petition added one
felony count of concealed firearm possession by a street gang
participant (count 2; § 25400, subd. (a)(2)). The second amended
petition dropped the misdemeanor count and added two
additional felonies: carrying a loaded firearm by a member of a
prohibited class (count 3; § 25850, subd. (a)); and carrying a
loaded and unregistered handgun (count 4; § 25850, subd. (c)(6)).
       The parties appeared for adjudication and pre-adjudication
motions on Thursday, March 3, 2022. A.M.’s counsel explained
she had received the second amended petition only the day
before. She accused the People of gamesmanship and requested
an offer of proof in support of the new felony counts. The People

                                2
described the evidence they intended to offer and stated no new
discovery was required. The court allowed the amendments.
      A.M.’s counsel asked for a continuance to Monday, March 7
so she could better prepare her defense on the new counts. The
court deferred ruling on the request and proceeded to hear A.M.’s
motion to suppress. The court heard testimony from the officers
who detained A.M. and located the gun. Before adjourning, the
court instructed the parties to return on Monday to finish
arguing the motion and to start adjudication. No proceedings
were held on Friday.
      The parties reconvened on Monday. The court denied the
motion to suppress and began adjudication. The court found the
allegations true on counts 2 and 4 true but found the allegations
not true on count 3. The People agreed to dismiss the gang
allegation on count 2 which reduced the offense to a
misdemeanor. The court noted A.M.’s recent progress in school
and placed him at home on probation over the People’s objection.
                             DISCUSSION
                         Petition Amendment
      A.M. argues the trial court erred by allowing last-minute
amendments to the Petition. This lack of notice, he argues, gave
him insufficient time to prepare a defense to the two additional
felony counts. We acknowledge the tardiness of the People’s
amendments but there is no error.
      Due process requires a minor receive adequate notice of a
charge so they may intelligently prepare a defense. (In re Robert
G. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 437, 442.) The People must notify the minor
in writing of “‘the specific charge or factual allegations to be
considered at the hearing, and that such written notice be given
at the earliest practicable time, and in any event sufficiently in
advance of the hearing to permit preparation.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

                                3
We review the court’s decision to allow the amendments for abuse
of discretion. (In re Man J. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 475, 481.)
       The People added two felony counts to the petition less
than a day before adjudication was scheduled to begin. It then
opposed A.M.’s request for a brief continuance, insisting defense
counsel did not need additional time to prepare because the
People did not plan to introduce new evidence. The People did
not explain why they belatedly added the new felony counts but
clearly A.M. received little notice before adjudication.
       We nevertheless conclude A.M. received adequate time to
prepare his defense. While arguing pre-trial motions on March 3,
defense counsel requested the court “go forward with the
adjudication on Monday [i.e., March 7] to give me ample time to
prepare instead of this afternoon.” The court did not rule on the
request. Instead, it directed the parties to use the afternoon to
hear two pending motions in limine and A.M.’s motion to
suppress. These motions consumed the balance of March 3. The
court then adjourned until March 7, at which time defense
counsel stated A.M. was ready to proceed with adjudication. The
People called the same two witnesses who had testified at the
motion to suppress hearing and offered the same exhibits into
evidence. There is no showing that A.M. did not have sufficient
time to prepare or would have presented his defense differently
with more notice. (See In re Jesse P. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1177,
1184 [trial court did not abuse its discretion when amended
counts were based on information already available to appellant
and appellant “[did] not attempt to explain how his defense would
have been any different”].)
                         Motion to Suppress
       A.M. challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion
to suppress the evidence flowing from his unlawful detention,

                               4
including the handgun found near the point of arrest. A.M. cites
Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266 [146 L.Ed.2d 254] to argue the
anonymous tip received by police did not justify his detention.
He also asserts the People ran afoul of the Harvey-Madden rule
by failing to elicit testimony from the law enforcement personnel
who received the tip and passed the information to the officer
who detained him. (People v. Madden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1017;
People v. Harvey (1958) 156 Cal.App.2d 516; see In re Eskiel S.
(1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1638, 1643 [“Justifying an arrest or
detention based on information received by an officer through
‘official channels’ requires the prosecution to trace the
information . . . back to its source and prove that the originating
or transmitting officer had the requisite probable cause or
reasonable suspicion to justify the arrest or detention”].) He
asserts “[t]he officer’s observations of the house on San Pedro also
fell short of adequate support” and that “the sole basis for
believing that criminal activity was taking place at/in and around
the house on San Pedro was the information received from the”
anonymous tip. We disagree.
        The anonymous tip prompted police to canvass a specific
area for possible gang and drug activity. A.M.’s detention and
eventual arrest, however, flowed from the officers’ observations
after arriving on scene, independent of the information provided
by the tip. The officer who detained A.M. first saw him from the
public sidewalk. What happened next constituted probable cause
to detain A.M. He clutched his waistband when the officer spoke
and began running. A.M.’s left hand remained at his waist while
he ran, leading the officer to suspect A.M. was carrying a
concealed firearm without a holster. Police established a
perimeter around adjacent properties so they could locate A.M.
They narrowed the search after a resident showed them security

                                 5
footage on his phone showing A.M. come onto his property. The
video showed him still clutching his waistband. The officer found
A.M. in the backyard. They justifiably detained him in this area
while they searched for the suspected firearm.
                          DISPOSITION
      The order sustaining the petition is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    CODY, J.

We concur:

     GILBERT, P.J.

     YEGAN, J.

                                6
                   Miguel Espinoza, Judge
             Superior Court County of Los Angeles
               ______________________________

      Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, Christopher G. Sanchez, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               7