In re Joshua M. CA1/5

Filed 12/5/14 In re Joshua M. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re JOSHUA M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A140934 JOSHUA M., Defendant and Appellant. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ13020286A)

Joshua M. (Joshua) appeals from a disposition order that imposed “gang conditions” as a term of his probation. He contends the gang conditions must be stricken because neither he nor his family had ties to a criminal street gang. We will affirm the order.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that Joshua, age 15, committed felony robbery and received stolen property. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 496.)1 According to the probation intake report, Joshua had pulled a 67-year-old woman off her bicycle, removed her iPhone and keys from her pocket, and fled. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise designated.

1

Later that day, he struck a young woman in the face, grabbed her iPhone from her hand, and fled. Within minutes he was apprehended by police, who found a stolen iPhone on his person. At an in-field show-up, the young victim identified Joshua as the person who struck her and took her property; the elder victim did not identify him but said his gray hoodie was similar to the clothing worn by her assailant. The juvenile court granted the district attorney’s request to reduce the felony robbery count to felony grand theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c)), and Joshua admitted this count in exchange for a dismissal of the other count. At the disposition hearing in February 2013, the court adjudged Joshua a ward of the court, removed him from his mother’s custody, and ordered his placement in a suitable foster home, private institution, group home or county facility. In March 2013, the juvenile court granted Joshua’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the disposition order, and scheduled a rehearing on the disposition. At the rehearing in April 2013, the court reinstated the original disposition. In August 2013, we affirmed the judgment, including the disposition order. Joshua was placed at Rite of Passage—Sierra Ridge Academy (ROP) in April 2013. The October 2013 exit report from ROP noted that he successfully completed the program and displayed “positive” and “exemplary behavior.” He was “soft spoken and respectful,” did not “seem to show any aggressive behaviors,” and was “very polite,” “quick to take initiative,” hardworking, and “very considerate of others.” He also denied affiliation with any gang. The report further advised, however, that Joshua minimized his crimes, questioned why he was placed at ROP, had a moderate risk of re-offending within a year, and experienced a moderate risk arising from his relationships. In addition, in a section of the report entitled “Long- Term Behavioral Goals,” under the category of “Behavioral Problem[s],” the report advised that Joshua’s “[a]nti-social values support frequent criminal activity with anti-social friends and acquaintances” and he made “favorable comparisons regarding anti-social behavior (e.g., Robin Hood).” (Italics added.)