People
v.
K.R. (In re K.R.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONEAug 22, 2018
A153714 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018)

A153714

08-22-2018

In re K.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.R., Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J043907)

K.R. appeals from a juvenile court order declaring him a ward of the court and placing him on probation after he admitted to possessing a firearm. His counsel asked this court to independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [Wende procedure applies in juvenile delinquency appeals].) K.R. was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm.

In August 2017, a Fairfield police officer saw a video recently posted to social media that depicted a young man, D.G., holding a firearm. The officer was familiar with D.G. and had previously arrested him for possession of a firearm. The officer recognized the area where the video was filmed as a parking lot in Fairfield. When he arrived there a few minutes later, he saw D.G. and four other young men, including then 17-year-old K.R., walking together in a group. D.G. was wearing the same clothing he had been wearing in the video.

Most of the facts underlying the offense are drawn from the transcript of the hearing on K.R.'s motion to suppress evidence.

The police officer called for backup, and another officer arrived to help detain D.G. This officer was aware that the area was known for gang activity, and in his experience it was common for gang members to pass firearms to others and for more than one gang member in a group to be armed.

The second police officer ordered D.G. and the other members of his group to lie on the ground. They all complied except for K.R., who kept walking. The officer gave the order again, and K.R. came back and got on the ground. The officer then grabbed K.R.'s hands to detain him. As K.R. tried to say something, his clothes shifted, and the officer saw the butt of a gun sticking out of his waistband. The officer handcuffed K.R. and recovered the gun, which was loaded.

The Solano County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that K.R. had committed the offenses of (1) possession of a firearm by a minor, a felony; (2) possession of live ammunition by a minor, a misdemeanor; and (3) based on a separate incident, petty theft, a misdemeanor. After K.R. was later found with a firearm on another occasion, the petition was amended to add an additional felony count of possession of a firearm by a minor and an additional misdemeanor count of possession of live ammunition by a minor.

These allegations were made under Penal Code sections 29610 (possession of firearm), 29650 (possession of ammunition), and 490.2 (petty theft).

These allegations were also made under Penal Code sections 29610 (possession of firearm) and 29650 (possession of ammunition). --------

K.R. filed a motion to suppress evidence from the August 2017 incident at issue, which was denied. As part of a plea agreement, he admitted to the corresponding allegation of firearm possession, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The juvenile court then placed K.R. on probation with various conditions, including gang-related terms. The court also committed him to juvenile hall for 80 days, with 50 days of credit for time served and 30 days that could be served on electronic monitoring.

There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal. The juvenile court properly denied the motion to suppress on the basis that the police officers had acted reasonably under the circumstances. K.R. objected to the gang-related probation terms, but the court acted within its discretion in imposing them given evidence of his association with gang members. Nor does error appear in any other aspect of the court's dispositional rulings. Therefore, the December 27, 2017 dispositional order is affirmed.

/s/_________


Humes, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Margulies, J. /s/_________
Dondero, J.