In re D.D. CA2/6 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/31/24 In re D.D. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
In re D.D., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B329166
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 22JV-00034A)
(San Luis Obispo County)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.D.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D.D. appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional
orders entered after admitting allegations that he participated in
a criminal street gang (Pen. Code,1 § 186.22, subd. (a)),
unlawfully possessed a firearm (§ 29820, subd. (b)), and resisted
arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).
1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In the early hours of New Year’s Day 2023, a minor was
shot in Atascadero. Someone yelled a gang slur shortly after the
shooting. Witnesses saw D.D. and an accomplice run from the
scene. D.D. made it home, but police apprehended his accomplice
in a field near the shooting.
Police apprehended D.D. the next day and seized his cell
phone as evidence. A video from the phone showed D.D. pulling a
handgun from his waistband and pointing it at the phone. Police
later recovered the gun where they had apprehended D.D.’s
accomplice. They also learned that D.D. had a history of gang
involvement.
Prosecutors alleged that D.D. committed attempted murder
(§§ 664/187, subd. (a); allegation 1), participated in a criminal
street gang (allegation 2), unlawfully possessed a firearm
(allegation 3), possessed an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a);
allegation 4), was a minor in possession of a firearm (§ 29610;
allegation 5), and resisted arrest (allegation 6). D.D. admitted
allegations 2, 3, and 6 in exchange for the dismissal of allegations
1, 4, and 5. The juvenile court accepted the admissions and
ordered a one-year camp placement. It calculated D.D.’s
maximum term of confinement as three years 10 months.
We appointed counsel to represent D.D. in this appeal.
After counsel examined the record, she filed an opening brief that
raises no arguable issues. On December 1, 2023, we advised D.D.
by mail that he had 30 days within which to submit any
contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have not
received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
D.D.’s attorney fully complied with her responsibilities and that
no arguable issue exists. (In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th
2
97, 117-119; see People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional and dispositional orders, entered May 25,
2023, are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
CODY, J.
3
Gayle L. Peron, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.