In re C.C. CA3

Filed 4/23/25 In re C.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re C.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C101599 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV142570)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for minor C.C. asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to C.C., we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In December 2022, while driving on patrol, a Sacramento County deputy sheriff saw a black car. He checked the Department of Motor Vehicles database and learned that

1

the car had been reported stolen. The deputy followed the car while waiting for more deputies to arrive. He followed the car into an apartment complex, where it crashed into an electrical transformer box. Three people exited the car and ran away. The deputy saw C.C., who was then 17 years old, get out of the driver’s seat. About an hour later, deputies found that C.C. was inside one of the apartments in the complex, where neighbors reported he had run and yelled to be let in. The deputy issued C.C. a citation but did not take him into custody. In May 2023, the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that C.C. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he had committed two criminal offenses: taking and driving a motor vehicle without consent and receiving stolen property.1 The juvenile court held a detention hearing, and C.C.’s counsel waived the reading of the petition and the advisement of rights. (See § 700; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.534(c), (d)(2) & (g).) C.C.’s counsel asked to continue the jurisdictional hearing several times for further investigation; the juvenile court granted the requests. (See §§ 657, 682, 700.) In May 2024, the district attorney’s office filed an amended petition adding allegations that C.C. fled a pursuing peace officer in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Prior to the jurisdictional hearing, the district attorney’s office moved to dismiss the new charge for insufficient evidence, and the juvenile court granted the request. The juvenile court held a jurisdictional hearing in May 2024. (See § 701.) The parties stipulated that the black car was taken and driven without the owner’s consent and was worth more than $950. The deputy testified to following the black car and seeing