In re Pedro S. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Aug 16, 2024 No. D082537Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant forfeited his claims of sentencing error by failing to raise them in the juvenile court, and that the record was insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in its discretionary selection of a seven-year baseline term of confinement.
Whether the appellant forfeited his claims of sentencing error by failing to object in the trial court.
Whether the appellant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to the failure to object to the court's comments and reasoning.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Pedro argues that the juvenile court made several errors in exercising its discretion to select that term of confinement. But having failed to raise each of these issues in the juvenile court, he has forfeited these contentions on appeal.”

“The forfeiture rule (sometimes called the waiver doctrine) applies to claims raised for the first time on appeal “involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate . . . discretionary sentencing choices.””

“Because the record is silent on why trial counsel did not object, we are unable to address and resolve Pedro’s ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal.”

Filed 8/16/24 In re Pedro S. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re PEDRO S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D082537 THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J244358)

PEDRO S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed. Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winter, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Joshua Trinh, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

After finding that he committed first degree murder and other felonies, the juvenile court committed Pedro S. to a secure youth treatment facility for seven years. Pedro argues that the juvenile court made several errors in exercising its discretion to select that term of confinement. But having failed to raise each of these issues in the juvenile court, he has forfeited these contentions on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2023, Pedro was alleged to have committed first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187), robbery (id., § 211), two firearm-related offenses (id., §§ 29610, 25400), and possessing live ammunition (id., § 29650), stemming from a dispute over some vape pens that Pedro wanted to buy from the victim. The incident was captured on a surveillance video. Apparently something went wrong during the transaction that caused the victim to grab the vape pens and run away from Pedro. Pedro chased down the victim, fatally shot him at close range in the back of the head while he was lying on the ground, and retrieved the vape pens. At the time of the murder, Pedro was 15 years old. After finding that he committed the charged offenses, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing to decide whether to commit Pedro to a secure

In re Pedro S. CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PEDRO S.,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

BUCHANAN, J.

AI Brief