In re David v. CA5

Filed 8/29/14 In re David V. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re DAVID V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067994

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JL004639)

v. OPINION DAVID V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. David W. Moranda, Judge. Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.

INTRODUCTION On July 9, 2013, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that David V., appellant, possessed a concealable firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610, count 1),1 possessed live ammunition (§ 29650, count 2), and actively participated in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a), count 3). An enhancement was alleged on count 1 that appellant committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). At the conclusion of a contested jurisdictional hearing on August 6, 2013, the juvenile court found all of the allegations in the petition true beyond a reasonable doubt.2 At the disposition hearing on August 13, 2013, the juvenile court placed appellant on probation upon various terms and conditions including that he serve 39 days in juvenile hall with 39 days credit for time already served and perform 32 hours of community service in the Juvenile Work Program. Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the gang enhancement on count 1 and insufficient evidence of count 3. Respondent replies that there was substantial evidence to support the gang enhancement but concedes there was insufficient evidence to support count 3. FACTS Merced Police Officer Reynaldo Alvarez was assigned to the Gang Violence Suppression Unit in July 2013. Alvarez had been a police officer for six and a half years. Alvarez had specific training for gang investigations, including over 120 hours of classroom training. This training included gang lifestyles, prison gangs, street gangs,