In re Isaiah W.

Filed 7/31/07 In re Isaiah W. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Isaiah W. appeals from the juvenile court jurisdictional and dispositional orders. The juvenile court sustained three counts alleging firearm offenses, all arising out of the same incident. Isaiahs counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplementary brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

Procedural Background

On September 26, 2006, a petition was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court alleging that Isaiah W. (born in April 1989) carried a concealed firearm in an automobile (count one; Penal Code 12025, subd. (a)(1)),[1]carried a loaded firearm in public (count two; 12031, subd. (a)(1)), possessed a concealable revolver (count three; 12101, subd. (a)(1)), possessed live ammunition (count four; 12101, subd. (b)(1)), and obliterated the serial number on a revolver (count five; 12090). The juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing, dismissed counts four and five, and sustained counts one through three.

At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found that section 654 applied to the three sustained offenses and set the maximum time of detention at three years. The court adjudged Isaiah a ward of the court, placed him in his mothers home, and imposed various probation conditions.

Factual Background

On September 22, 2006, San Leandro Police Officer Joshua Brum was assigned to provide security at a high school football game. At about 10:00 p.m., he observed a car with four passengers in the back seat. Officer Brum suspected a seat belt violation. He turned on his lights and siren to signal for the vehicle to pull over.

The car did not immediately stop. Instead, it continued down the block, turned right, and pulled over after another 200 yards. While following the car, Officer Brum observed the two persons in the front seat making suspicious movements. Officer Brum also realized that the car matched the description of a gold car that had been involved in a gun brandishing incident at a football game two weeks before.

Officer Brum approached the car and asked the driver, appellant Isaiah, to exit. Isaiah complied and consented to a search of the vehicle. A search by another officer revealed a loaded revolver hidden behind a loose dashboard stereo. The officer also found live ammunition in a handkerchief behind the carpet on the front passenger side.

Before the instant offenses, Isaiahs criminal record involved one successful diversion for petty theft.

Discussion

There was no error in the juvenile court jurisdictional findings and disposition.

Our review of the jurisdictional findings is the same as our review following an adult conviction. (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809.) We determine  whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 139.) The juvenile court carefully considered and evaluated the testimony presented at the jurisdictional hearing, as well as the argument of the prosecutor and Isaiahs counsel. The court sustained some offenses and dismissed others. The court emphasized Isaiahs delay in stopping the car and the suspicious movements observed by Officer Brum in concluding that the evidence showed that Isaiah aided and abetted the passengers concealment of the gun. Sufficient evidence supports the findings on counts one through three.

There were no errors in the disposition.

Isaiah was represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings.

Isaiahs counsel advised him of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to the courts attention any issue he believed deserved review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Defendant did not file a supplementary brief.

There are no legal issues that require further briefing. We find no arguable issues on appeal.

Disposition

The juvenile court orders are affirmed.

GEMELLO, J.

We concur.

SIMONS, Acting P.J.

NEEDHAM, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.

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