In re J.G.

Filed 4/24/07 In re J.G. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE COURT:*

J.G. appeals from the orders of the juvenile court declaring wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code,  602) after finding that the minor had made two felony criminal threats (Pen. Code,  422),[1]he had committed a misdemeanor, the exhibiting of a handgun ( 417, subd. (a)(2)), and he had possessed a concealable firearm ( 12101, subd. (a)(1)), with findings the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)). The juvenile court ordered short-term placement in the camp-community program.

We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.

After examination of the record, on December 27, 2006, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On the same date, we advised the minor that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

The juvenile court held an adjudication in which the evidence established that at about 9:45 p.m. on June 6, 2006, S.G. went outside her 83rd Street apartment and saw that someone had sprayed 74 and 74 Hoover gang graffiti all over her brothers car, which was parked in her parking spot. The minor and some friends were sitting on a wall near the car. Previously, her boyfriend and the minor had had a fight. When her son asked them to move, the minor threatened to pop [S.G.] with a gun.

The minor had his hand in his pocket, and S.G. said that the minor had been known to possess firearms. The minor yelled out, Eight-Trey apartments and claimed her apartment building as his gangs territory.

J.S., S.G.s son, testified that about three weeks before June 6, 2006, J.S. saw the minor get into an argument with some girls, and the minor pulled out a gun. The gun had no clip. On June 6, 2006, he saw the minor tagging his apartment building and the car. J.S. told the minor not to do that. Then, S.G. came outside. The minor sassed S.G., and J.S. and the minor started arguing. The minor went inside and then came outside with a gun in his pocket. S.G. went upstairs to telephone the police. The minor pulled the gun out, cocked it, and told J.S. that I am going to kill you and your mom and I got a clip in the gun. The minors statement made him concerned about his and his familys safety, but he was not sure that the minor had the heart to do it.

Alvaro Navarro, a Los Angeles Police officer who is assigned to a local gang unit, testified that he worked the Eight Trey and Seven Four sets of the Hoover gang. The officer said that the Eight Trey, Seven Four Hoovers claim the territory where the victims live on 83rd Street and that the minor is an admitted member of the Seven Four Hoover criminal street gang. The set is an offshoot of the former Crips gang that controlled that area, but the gang no longer identifies itself as a Crips gang.

The officer testified to evidence that proved the elements of the gang allegation and gave his opinion that the present crimes were committed for the benefit of or on behalf of a criminal street gang. The officer explained that the minor was acting on behalf of a criminal street gang because when he was questioned about tagging there, he claimed the building and then threatened bodily harm to the person questioning his entitlement to do as he pleased at the apartment complex.

The officers arrested the minor later at another location and did not recover the firearm. When the officers responded to the 911 call, the minor was not inside his girlfriends apartment. A rear window was open.

In defense, the minor testified that S.G. had accused him of spraying graffiti on an old car parked behind his girlfriends apartment building. He did not put the graffiti on the car. Later, J.S. confronted him about the graffiti. The minor denied making the threats or pointing a gun out at S.G. or J.S. He did not own a gun, and he was not a gang member.

The juvenile court sustained the petition.

At disposition, the probation officer recommended home on probation. The minor lived with his mother, and he was doing well in school. The juvenile court observed that the minor, age 17, had no previous sustained petitions and no juvenile petitions had ever been filed against him. Nevertheless, the pre-plea report indicated that the minor had had numerous prior contacts with law enforcement for property crimes, drug crimes, battery and possible robbery. The juvenile court concluded that the seriousness of the current offenses warranted camp-community placement. The juvenile court ordered short-term camp because the minors current egregious conduct was offset by his positive conduct, particularly his excellent performance in school.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that the minors attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The orders of wardship are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.

* DOI TODD, Acting P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.