In re Bryan N. CA1/1

Filed 3/16/23 In re Bryan N. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 ONE
In re BRYAN N., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRYAN N., A165500
Defendant and Appellant.
(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J22-00243)
Bryan N. appeals from a juvenile court order declaring him a ward of
the court, committing him to a youth ranch, and placing him on probation
after he pleaded no contest to assault and grand theft. His appellate counsel
asked this court to independently review the record to determine whether
there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; In re
Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [Wende procedure applies in juvenile
delinquency appeals].) Bryan was informed of his right to file a supplemental
brief and did not do so. We conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm.
1
On the afternoon of April 23, 2022, a 16-year-old Norteño gang member
was shot in the head near a Concord park.1 After the police responded, the
victim reported that he arranged to sell a firearm to a potential buyer. When
he arrived at the agreed location, he was approached by three people, later
identified as then 17-year-old Bryan and two other young men, B.C. and J.H.
The victim reported that B.C. pointed a gun at him and J.H. took the victim’s
backpack, which contained the gun he intended to sell. As the victim was
running away, B.C. shot him.
Video surveillance footage corroborated the victim’s story, showing that
Bryan, B.C., and J.H. approached the area where the victim was shot and
then, after an argument and gun shot could be heard off camera, ran away.
Subsequent searches uncovered gang paraphernalia and other evidence that
Bryan and the other two young men were affiliated with a Sureño gang and
that the robbery of the victim was planned. Bryan was arrested at his home
in early May 2022.
Later that month, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a
juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602
alleging that Bryan committed second degree robbery, a felony, while armed
with a firearm.2 After a contested detention hearing, the juvenile court
ordered Bryan detained at juvenile hall.
Shortly afterward, the petition was amended to add allegations that
Bryan committed two felonies, assault by means likely to produce great
1 Bryan stipulated to a police report as the factual basis for his plea.
We draw the facts from the dispositional report’s description of the police
report, which is not in our record.
2 These allegations were made under Penal Code sections 211 and
212.5, subdivision (c) (second degree robbery), and 12022, subdivision (a)(1)
(arming enhancement). All further statutory references are to the Penal
Code unless otherwise noted.
2
bodily injury and grand theft from a person.3 As part of a plea agreement,
Bryan then pleaded no contest to the two new counts, and the original count
and arming enhancement were dismissed. He also waived his right to appeal
any errors occurring before the plea.
At the June 2022 disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared Bryan
a ward of the court. He was placed on probation with various terms and
conditions, including gang-related terms. The court also committed him to
the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (the ranch) for six months, “plus
an additional 180-day conditional [r]anch after-care period.” His maximum
custody time was three years and 240 days, with custody credits of 29 days
for his time in juvenile hall.4
There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal. Bryan objected
to the gang-related probation terms, but the trial court acted within its
discretion in imposing them, given evidence of his association with gang
members. He also objected to his placement at the ranch, arguing that in-
home placement would be sufficient to address his needs, but there was
ample evidence that he needed a more restrictive placement. No error
appears in any other aspect of the court’s dispositional rulings.
Accordingly, the June 2, 2022 dispositional order is affirmed.
3These allegations were made under sections 245, subdivision (a)(4)
(assault), and 487, subdivision (c) (grand theft).
4 The juvenile court did not specify how the maximum custody term
was calculated, but it appears to be the midterm of three years for assault
(see § 245, subd. (a)(4)) plus eight months (one-third the midterm of two
years) for grand theft, since the theft involved a firearm. (See § 489,
subd. (a); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (d).)
3
_________________________
Humes, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Banke, J.
_________________________
Swope, J.*
*Judge of the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
People v. Bryan N. A165500
4