In re J.W. CA1/2

Filed 5/5/15 In re J.W. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re J.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A143108 J.W., (Contra Costa County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. J1100350)

Appellant J.W., who is 16 years of age, appeals from a dispositional order continuing him as a ward of the court, removing him from the custody of his parents (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (a)(3)),1 and committing him to a county juvenile facility for a period not to exceed the earlier of 10 years and two months or his 21st birthday. His court appointed attorney has filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the case pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief but he has not done so.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW I. The facts relating to the carjacking offense, which are taken from the probation report, are as follows: About 12:45 a.m. on July 15, 2014, Gustavo Gonzalez was confronted by three minors, two of whom pointed black pistols at him and demanded his money, wallet, and keys. About two hours later the three minors and a fourth person went to Gonzalez’s home and drove off with his parked car. When Gonzalez’s wife yelled at the minors, one of them pointed a handgun at her and told her to get back inside or he would shoot her. Using another vehicle, Gonzalez followed the stolen car as it fled onto Interstate 80. Eventually, police officers who had been alerted to the crime pursued the stolen car for several miles until it collided (apparently with an abutment) and overturned near the El Portal off ramp. At that time five individuals were in the car. One was taken into custody following “canine contact,” the other four, including appellant, were detained after crawling from a driver side window and were taken to the hospital. Gonzalez did not identify appellant as involved in the taking of his vehicle. At 8:45 a.m., after he had been treated for his injuries, appellant was admonished of his rights and elected not to speak with the police. Appellant later admitted to his probation officer that he knew the car had earlier been stolen. As stated in the probation report, appellant shared that he was actually happy to be in juvenile hall because he acknowledged he could have died the night of his arrest. He divulged, “I’d rather be here, than dead.” “[Appellant] regrets his involvement, which he admits was taking a ride in a stolen vehicle, especially because it created a bad example for his younger siblings and he hurt his mother and grandmother. [Appellant] was very descriptive regarding the high speed chase leading up to his arrest. As he spoke, he was visibly shaken and took long pauses in between sentences.” When asked about the victims, appellant acknowledged they probably were scared and he would not have wanted that to happen to either of his parents.