Filed 4/27/22 In re D.G. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

D.G., a minor, appeals from a final judgment of the juvenile court. His counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. There are none, so we affirm.

BACKGROUND

D.G. entered a no contest plea to one charge of possession of a loaded firearm. The facts of the offense are taken from the probation reports.

On the night of September 2, 2021, after an argument with his mother, 15-year-old D.G. left home without permission, secured a firearm from a friend, and went to his girlfriend’s house. The girlfriend’s parents discovered D.G. in their daughter’s bedroom and asked him to leave. He complied but later returned to retrieve his cell phone. Home surveillance footage showed D.G. armed with a handgun when the girlfriend’s parents answered the door. After a verbal dispute where, according to D.G., his girlfriend’s father “verbally expressed his anger,” D.G. went into the street, fired the handgun at least once and possibly twice, and fled on foot. Not long afterward, D.G. was apprehended by police on a nearby street, in possession of a loaded handgun.

D.G. admitted smoking marijuana on the day of the offense but denied any other drug use or gang association. He admitted that he used his cell phone to contact a friend who furnished him with the gun. D.G. then brought the gun to his girlfriend’s house. According to the police report, he discussed the offense on social media following the incident.

D.G.’s mother reported that she was “in shock” that her son was arrested for possessing a gun; she did not own any firearms and did not know how D.G. obtained one. She said D.G.’s grades were good, and he had no issues at school before the pandemic, but he had difficulty with distance learning and his grades had suffered. D.G. had been suspended for fighting twice, once in November 2019 and once in August 2021. According to the probation department, D.G. had a “strong support system of adults who speak fondly of him and want him to succeed.” He was assessed as having an overall low risk level for re-offense.

In an interview with the probation department, D.G.’s girlfriend’s mother stated that following the offense, she feared for her family’s safety. She was contemplating changing residences because she was afraid D.G. might retaliate; however, she felt comforted by the restraining order protecting her, her husband, and her daughter that had been issued at the initial court hearing. She had directed her daughter not to maintain a relationship with D.G. “at the moment” to allow time for D.G. “to receive the treatment he needs to remain law abiding.”

D.G. was properly advised and entered a no contest plea to felony possession of a loaded firearm; the felony would be reduced to a misdemeanor upon successful completion of probation; and the remaining charge of felony possession of a concealed firearm was dismissed. The factual basis for the plea was the police report and defense counsel’s conversations with D.G. The court issued a restraining order barring D.G. from contacting or coming within 100 yards of his girlfriend or her parents except at school, where the distance was reduced to 15 yards. D.G. moved to transfer the case to Alameda County; the motion was denied. D.G. agreed the disposition hearing could be handled by different judge.

The disposition report recommended that D.G. be placed on probation in his mother’s home with 60 days of home supervision. On the day of the disposition hearing D.G. had been in juvenile hall for 28 days. Most of that time he was on “Gold status,” signifying “excellent behavior, with no behavioral issues.” Defense counsel asked the court to reduce the home supervision period to 30 days; waive or stay a $100 restitution fine pending an ability-to-pay determination; and strike a proposed electronic search condition pursuant to People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481.

The court struck the fine but found the 60-day home supervision period was necessary and appropriate. It imposed the electronic search clause, observing that D.G. had used his phone to call a friend to obtain the gun and discussed the incident on social media shortly after the shooting, but limited it to “evidence of obtaining, possessing, or discussing a firearm.”

D.G. was adjudged a ward of the court with no termination date and placed in his mother’s home with 60 days of home supervision. He was ordered to comply with standard conditions of probation, including that he obey all laws; obey his parents, guardians, school authorities; attend school regularly; and report to his probation officer as directed. D.G. was also required to submit to drug and alcohol testing; submit his person, property, vehicle, and residence to search with or without a warrant; not knowingly use or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons; report any police contacts related to criminal activity to his probation officer; stay away from any school grounds unless enrolled, with a parent or guardian, or with prior authorization; complete 40 hours of community service; and write a 500-word essay on the dangers of unlawfully possessing a firearm.

Restitution was set at zero, and D.G. and his parents were ordered to participate in counseling. D.G. was ordered not to own or possess any firearm until the age of 30 and to provide buccal swab samples, thumb and palm print impressions, and blood or other specimens as required pursuant to Penal Code section 296.1. There was no request for removal or modification of the restraining order, which remained in effect.

D.G. was advised of his appellate rights and filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Appellate counsel represents that she advised D.G. of his right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so. This court has reviewed the entire record on appeal. There are no legal issues that require further briefing, and there is no evident error.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Desautels, J.*

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Pollak, P.J.

_________________________

Streeter, J.

A163861 People v. D.G.

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.