People v. Clay D. CA1/2

Filed 3/25/16 P. v. Clay D. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A146360 v. CLAY D., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0500819) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant, Clay D., a minor and dependent child of the juvenile court, admitted a violation of Penal Code section 32, accessory to a crime. This is an appeal from the juvenile court’s order declaring wardship and ordering probation terms, including placement in a court-approved home or institution. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. Appellant has also been informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so. After our independent review of the record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, and we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We rely on the Alameda County Probation Intake Report for the description of the underlying facts because this matter was resolved without the taking of testimony or trial. Appellant was arrested by the Berkeley Police Department on May 3, 2015. A victim reported that he was walking with his friend when they were approached by two male juveniles, one of whom said, “empty your pockets, or we are going to shoot.” The

1

victim and his friend brushed off the comments; the friend informed the suspect that he didn’t have anything. According to the victim, one of the suspects motioned to his waistband as if he had a gun. The victim and his friend went into a liquor store, and were followed by four suspects, and told the store owner about the attempted robbery and threats. One of the suspects hit the victim on the back of the head. The police were called. Officers who were circulating in the area were flagged down by bystanders who indicated that a group of males had been seen running through backyards. Four males were detained about six blocks away; they were sweating profusely and covered in loose debris. The victim identified appellant and another male as being involved in the attempted robbery. A juvenile wardship petition was filed on May 13, 2015, alleging two felony counts of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211). Defendant was eligible for deferred entry of judgment. However, he failed to appear in Alameda County on June 25, 2015, and a bench warrant was issued. It was reported to the court on June 25 that although transportation had been arranged for appellant from his group home, he had “AWOL’d” from the group home. On July 20, 2015, appellant appeared in juvenile court in Alameda County. Counsel was appointed for him and he was advised of the charges against him. Appellant was ordered detained, and the outstanding bench warrant was recalled. Appellant’s counsel asked for more time to speak to appellant about an offer that had apparently been conveyed for disposition of the matter. A pretrial conference was held on July 23, 2015. Appellant’s counsel stated that she and appellant “had a very lengthy talk last night,” and appellant was prepared to accept the offer to admit to an amended count 1 of the petition, a violation of Penal Code section 32 as a misdemeanor, with the understanding that the matter would be transferred to Contra Costa County for disposition since appellant lived in that county. The juvenile court advised appellant of the constitutional rights he was waiving, and made sure he understood those rights. The juvenile court also advised appellant of the consequences of his admission, and determined that appellant understood them. The