In re R.W. CA1/3
Filed 2/25/21 In re R.W. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
In re R.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. A160353 ______________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE (Contra Costa County OF CALIFORNIA, Super. Ct. No. J2000291)
Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
R.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
In July 2019, following three drive-by shootings and a separate incident resulting in seventeen-year-old R.W.’s arrest for possession of a firearm, the San Joaquin County District Attorney filed an amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging R.W. had committed numerous felony offenses (including ten counts of attempted murder in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, §§ 186.22, subd. (b), 187, 644)). At the April 15, 2020 jurisdictional hearing, the San Joaquin County Superior Court accepted R.W.’s waiver of rights and his no contest plea to assault with a firearm on a person (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)) as a lesser offense to one attempted murder count; all
1
remaining counts and enhancements in the amended petition were dismissed. The case was transferred for disposition to Contra Costa County where R.W.’s mother had moved the family. The Contra Costa County Superior Court (hereinafter the juvenile court) accepted the transfer. At the May 5, 2020 disposition hearing, the juvenile court accepted the probation department’s recommendations. R.W. was adjudged to be an indefinite ward of the court, removed from parental custody, and committed to a county institution under probation supervision for a term not to exceed his maximum custodial time of three years and 21 days (four years with credit for time served of 299 days), or until the age of 21, whichever occurred first. The court directed R.W. to comply with certain probation conditions, including that he participate and complete the Youthful Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) while detained in juvenile hall, and comply with numerous gang conditions. The juvenile court specifically rejected R.W.’s request for release to his mother’s custody on electronic monitoring. It found that R.W.’s commitment to a county institution was required based on the extreme seriousness of the offense1, his ongoing risk to the community given his gang affiliation, and his need for supervision and appropriate services to rehabilitate him within the time frame of the court’s jurisdiction.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)