In re Gary S. CA2/4 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 7/26/22 In re Gary S. CA2/4
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 FOUR
    In re GARY S., a Person Coming                                        B315840
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                         (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. FJ57524)
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    GARY S.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
    County, Miguel Espinoza, Judge. Affirmed.
    California Appellate Project and Richard L. Fitzer, under
    appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Gary S. appeals from order denying a motion to suppress evidence
    and declaring appellant a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and
    Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that he committed
    misdemeanor possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen. Code, § 29610).
    He was placed on home of probation in the home of his mother.
    The evidence at the adjudication hearing established that around
    12:45 a.m. on May 24, 2021, two officers with the Los Angeles Police
    Department were driving on patrol when one officer saw a male
    teenager, later identified as Joseph R., standing on the sidewalk next to
    a parked car. The car’s front passenger door was open, and four or five
    people were sitting inside the car. The officer noticed Joseph R. because
    he was wearing a backpack and holding what appeared to be a nitrous
    oxide tank.1
    The officers approached Joseph R. and the parked car. Appellant
    and the other individuals inside the car were seen attempting to conceal
    open containers of alcohol. An officer ordered appellant and his cohorts
    to get out of the car while his partner conducted a patdown search of
    Joseph R. During the patdown search, the officer felt several jars inside
    Joseph R.’s backpack that the officer believed carried narcotics. A
    search inside Joseph R.’s backpack revealed bags of narcotics and a
    loaded semi-automatic pistol. A second firearm was recovered from
    Joseph R.’s waistband.
    Joseph R., appellant, and several other individuals were placed in
    handcuffs. As an officer inspected the firearms, appellant
    1     It is a misdemeanor to possess nitrous oxide with the intent to ingest it
    for purposes of causing a condition of intoxication. (Pen. Code, § 381b.) It is
    also a misdemeanor to distribute or offer to sell nitrous oxide to any person
    under 18 years of age. (Id., § 381c, subd. (b).)
    2
    “spontaneously” admitted owning the firearm that officers had located
    inside Joseph R.’s backpack. When asked his age, appellant stated he
    was 16 years old. Appellant was arrested for possession of the firearm
    and taken into custody.
    Appellant filed a motion to suppress his spontaneous admission to
    police that he owned the firearm located in Joseph R.’s backpack,
    arguing that his statement was the fruit of an unlawful detention.
    Based on the evidence adduced at the adjudication hearing, the court
    denied the motion and found appellant to be a person described by
    Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.
    After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel
    filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the
    record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    . On March 3,
    2022, we notified appellant that he had 30 days to file a supplemental
    brief raising any contentions or arguments he wished this court to
    consider. To date, we have received no response.
    We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no
    arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s
    compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record,
    received adequate and effective appellate review of the orders entered
    against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 
    528 U.S. 259
    , 278.)
    //
    //
    DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    3
    WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
    We concur:
    COLLINS, J.
    CURREY, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B315840

Filed Date: 7/26/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/26/2022