In re Alec R. CA5
Filed 2/27/13 In re Alec R. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re ALEC R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, F065121
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJD065191)
v. OPINION ALEC R.,
Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge. Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Franson, J.
The court readjudged appellant, Alec R., a ward of the court after it sustained allegations in a subsequent juvenile wardship petition charging him with conspiracy to shoot at an inhabited dwelling (count 2/Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1) & 246) and resisting arrest (count 3/Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). On appeal, appellant contends the court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss these two offenses. We find merit to this contention with respect to the conspiracy charge. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTS On March 13, 2012, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition charging appellant with shooting at an inhabited dwelling (count 1/Pen. Code, § 246), conspiracy to shoot at an inhabited dwelling (count 2), and resisting arrest (count 3). The evidence at appellant’s jurisdictional hearing established that at around midnight on March 9, 2012, someone fired at least two rounds from a shotgun at Chanou See’s house on North Bridge Street in Visalia, damaging the front door and breaking a bedroom window. Ernie Ramirez testified that he arrived home from work just prior to the shooting. As he drove up to his house, which was located in a cul-de-sac named East Parker Court, Ramirez saw two people just north of See’s residence standing at the northeast corner of East Parker Court and North Bridge Street. The subjects were dressed in black hoods and black pants and Ramirez could not see their faces. Five seconds after entering his house, Ramirez heard two shots. He looked out a window and saw the two subjects standing about 10 feet away from See’s house and then running east down East Parker Court, past a barricade, and into an open area where some abandoned railroad tracks were located. Ramirez noticed one of them appeared to be holding something in his hand. Ramirez’s mother was also in the house at the time. After hearing two gunshots, she looked out a bedroom window and saw two people wearing black or dark blue hoods running east down East Parker Court towards the open area.
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)