In re Rafael R. CA1/1

Filed 8/31/21 In re Rafael R. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re RAFAEL R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A159502

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County v. Super. Ct. No. J19-00774) RAFAEL R., Defendant and Appellant.

Following appellant’s plea of no contest to felony grand theft and misdemeanor brandishing a weapon, the juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court with no termination date and released him to live with his mother on supervised probation with various terms and conditions. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because this case was resolved by plea, we briefly summarize the facts from the probation report. On August 1, 2019, the victim drove from Richmond to Fairfield to sell his gaming computer for $1,200 after listing it on the OfferUp application. The victim met with M.R., who only showed him $2. M.R. instructed the victim to wait for M.R.’s friend because he had the money. While waiting for

M.R.’s friend, as M.R. was texting someone, the victim noticed appellant pacing and waiting near the southeast area of a park. Appellant then approached the victim and M.R., tapped M.R. on the shoulder as a signal, and pointed a gun only at the victim. The gun did not appear to be real, but the victim did not want to risk his life for $1,200. Appellant took the victim’s computer and phone; however, he did not take M.R.’s phone. As appellant fled eastbound, M.R. called 911 for the victim. Further investigation revealed that the OfferUp account was registered to the account of “raffaael” and was connected to a telephone number listed as belonging to appellant. A delinquency petition (Welf. & Inst., § 602, subd. (a)) filed on August 22, 2019 alleged appellant committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211/212.5, subd. (c); count one) and used a deadly or dangerous weapon, a pellet gun (id., § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Less than a month later, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1, seeking to suppress the cell phone that was taken from him while a law enforcement officer was interviewing him at school. He also sought to suppress the statement he made to the officer. The following day, pursuant to the prosecutor’s motion, the juvenile court struck the enhancement allegation. Appellant then filed another motion to suppress and traverse the warrant, alleging the officer misled the magistrate in drafting the warrant. In November 2019, the court held a hearing on the motion to quash and traverse search warrants executed at appellant’s mother’s and father’s residences.1 Defense counsel argued that although the victim told law enforcement the gun appeared to be fake, the search warrant affiant