In re Brady M. CA1/5

Filed 8/16/16 In re Brady M. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 BRADY M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A145816 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. JV84185) BRADY M., Defendant and Appellant.

On December 1, 2014, a coach at Brady M.’s (Minor’s) high school placed her iPhone on a table during lunch. She saw Minor at the table, and seconds later noticed her phone was gone. She turned towards Minor and some other students, and said that if one of them had taken the phone, to put it back on the table. Minor looked at her and left the room. A witness told the coach she saw Minor take the phone. The coach reported the incident to the school dean, who informed the resource officer. The officer, accompanied by the dean, found Minor in his car in the parking lot. After smelling marijuana in the car, the officer read Minor his Miranda rights. The officer searched the car and found a baggie of marijuana in the driver’s side door pocket, and an iPhone inside the back center armrest. The coach confirmed the phone belonged to her and that the case was missing.

1

After being arrested, Minor admitted he took the phone, and after unsuccessfully trying to sell it, removed the case and threw it away. He also admitted possessing the marijuana, which he wanted to sell. On December 31, 2014, Minor was charged in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition with one count of possession of marijuana for sale (Count 1, Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), one count of receiving stolen property (Count 2, Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), one count of petty theft (Count 3, Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)), and one count of possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Count 4, Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)). Minor was found eligible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). On April 14, 2015, pursuant to an agreement, Minor admitted the possession for sale charge, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the remaining charges, and the juvenile court dismissed those charges. After the court set a date for disposition, Minor’s counsel stated she would not waive time, asked that the matter be set promptly, and requested a DEJ suitability finding in the report. The prosecutor responded that Minor would have to plead to all counts of the original petition for Minor to qualify for DEJ. Defense counsel disagreed that a plea to all counts was required, and the juvenile court told counsel, “They can do an assessment for DEJ, and we can worry about that later if he opts for that.” Defense counsel again expressed doubt that her client was required to admit all counts in the petition to be eligible, and the prosecutor responded, “But it’s only if we agree – anyway, we will talk about that later.” At the next hearing, on May 26, 2015, the court found Minor suitable for DEJ. The prosecutor argued that for the court to grant him DEJ, it had to reinstate the three dismissed offenses from the initial petition, and Minor had to admit all four of the offenses in that petition. The court then told Minor he had previously admitted the possession for sale charge “so you could find out if you were suitable for DEJ, and that was a way for you to find out, after having been reviewed by probation, whether you are suitable. [¶] Well, had we known at the time, when you entered your admission on April 14th, that you were suitable, we wouldn’t have had to go through any of this.”