In re Armando A. CA5

Filed 1/2/15 In re Armando A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ARMANDO A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F069407

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 511486)

v. OPINION ARMANDO A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Shawn D. Bessey, Judge. Carol Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION On March 10, 2014, appellant Armando A., who had a prior adjudication pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for one count of felony second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211, count 1),1 waived his rights to a contested hearing and admitted his second violation of probation. On April 15, 2014, the juvenile court ordered appellant’s commitment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), for a maximum term of five years. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Robbery Adjudication On August 31, 2012, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging appellant committed a robbery (§ 211) on April 17, 2012, and an enhancement for committing the robbery with the knowledge that another person was personally armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (d)).2 On August 31, 2012, appellant waived his rights to a contested hearing and admitted the robbery allegation after the court advised him of his rights, as well as the consequences of his plea. The enhancement was dismissed. The factual basis for the plea was that on April 17, 2012, Alejandro R. was walking down the street with his friend Jesus when appellant and another suspect approached them. The second suspect asked Jesus if he was a “‘Scrap.’” Alejandro and Jesus ignored them and kept walking. Appellant and the other suspect started following Alejandro and Jesus. The second suspect pulled out a silver revolver from his pocket and