California Court of Appeal Mar 12, 2024 No. E082174Unpublished
Filed 3/12/24 P. v. E.C. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082174
v. (Super.Ct.No. J294916)
E.C., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Tony Raphael,
Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
E.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order adjudging him a ward of
the court and committing him to a term of confinement at Gateway to Arise (Arise), a
secure youth treatment facility. We appointed counsel to represent E.C. on appeal, and
counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of
the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v.
At the detention hearing, the court found that E.C.’s continued presence in his
parents’ home was contrary to his welfare and continued his detention in juvenile hall
pending further hearing on the matter. At the pretrial hearing, E.C. admitted the robbery
allegation, and the court granted the People’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts.
The probation department reported that according to the police report, E.C. and a
co-participant lured a victim through Instagram to meet them in a parking garage. Upon
the victim’s arrival, E.C.’s co-participant demanded the victim’s belongings at gunpoint.
3
E.C. and his co-participant then began to hit the victim, causing the victim several cuts to
his face, neck, and ears. E.C.’s co-participant demanded the victim’s car and directed the
victim to get into the car, but the victim refused. E.C. got into the driver’s seat of the
victim’s car and fled the garage with his co-participant. After being taken into custody,
E.C. agreed to show officers where he had thrown the gun out of the car’s passenger
window.
In its disposition report, the probation department recommended that E.C. be
committed to Arise because, among other reasons, “his crimes [were] becoming more
violent and including random victims.” At the contested disposition hearing, the court
considered whether an unsecured placement was an option but expressed concern that
E.C.’s most recent offense involved “deception” and was “very sophisticated and
dangerous.” The court adopted the department’s analysis in the disposition report and
committed E.C. to Arise with a baseline term of three years and a maximum term of
confinement of three years eight months.
DISCUSSION
E.C.’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief raising one potential issue: whether
the court erred by committing E.C. to Arise. Counsel asked that we conduct an
independent review of the record. (See In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 117-
119 [Wende procedure applies in the juvenile delinquency context to a minor’s first
appeal as of right].) We advised E.C. that he had 30 days to file a personal supplemental
brief, and we received no response.
4
We have independently reviewed the record and found no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to E.C. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th
106, 118-119; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Accordingly, we affirm the
dispositional order.
DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
MENETREZ J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's dispositional order committing the minor to a secure youth treatment facility after finding no arguable error upon independent review of the record.
Issues
Whether the juvenile court erred in committing the minor to a secure youth treatment facility.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have independently reviewed the record and found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to E.C.”