Court Opinion

ID: 9949982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 22:02:33.5809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:46.870998
License: Public Domain

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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E082174

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. J294916)

 E.C.,                                                                   OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         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.

                                                             1
       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

                                              2
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.

                                              3
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.

                                              4
       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.

                                              5