In re C.C. CA1/4

Filed 7/14/16 In re C.C. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re C.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.C., A145797 Defendant and Appellant. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. JV83668)

Appellant C.C., a ward of the juvenile court, admitted to violating a term of his probation barring him from consuming alcohol. Following that admission, his probationary term was extended on stricter terms than those originally imposed. He now appeals. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Although appellant has been advised of his right to file a supplemental brief on any points he may wish to address with us directly, he has not availed himself of that right. Having conducted a full-record review, we find no issues that merit briefing. We therefore affirm.

1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Wardship and Terms of Probation Appellant was declared a ward of the juvenile court on May 8, 2014, after the court sustained misdemeanor charges from multiple petitions filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.1 On that same date, he was placed on in- home probation. As one of the conditions of probation, appellant was prohibited from using, possessing, or being under the influence of any alcohol. On June 19, 2015, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed a notice of probation violation pursuant to section 777, subdivision (a). The notice alleged appellant violated the terms of his probation by consuming alcohol on June 13, 2015. Appellant sought to defend against this section 777 charge by moving under Penal Code section 1538.5 to suppress evidence gathered by the police in connection with his detention and arrest on the day he was allegedly found intoxicated. The evidence adduced by the parties at the motion to suppress hearing was, respectively, as follows. B. The Prosecution’s Case At 7:00 p.m., on June 13, 2015 Officer Brian Blake, a South San Francisco police officer and a member of the San Mateo County Gang Task Force, was working on a report at the station. At that time, he heard over the radio a call regarding a gun. He did not hear the actual 911 call, but rather the dispatcher’s report of the call. As relayed by the dispatcher, the 911 call reported a fight in the 600 block of Railroad in South San Francisco involving several males, one with a gun. The caller identified the combatants as four or five Hispanic males wearing red and white. The men were seen fighting, and then fleeing. This was an area that had recently received a lot of attention due to rival gang activity. From the station, Officer Blake drove toward the designated area. While he was on the way, other officers reported that “no subjects were seen in the