In re I.R. CA6

Filed 5/5/23 In re I.R. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re I.R., a Person Coming Under the H050059
Juvenile Court Law. (Monterey County
Super. Ct. No. 21JV000474)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
I.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained a wardship
petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), 1 finding
the allegations true beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant I.R. committed forcible
rape, kidnapping, burglary, criminal threats, assault with a deadly weapon, and corporal
injury. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
I.R. and Jane Doe, both 17 years old at the time of the incidents described herein,
had been in a dating relationship from April 2020 until August or September 2021.
1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
Pursuant to applicable law, we have reviewed the entire record and provide a
brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the allegations against the
minor, and the disposition imposed by the juvenile court. (People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
According to Doe, I.R. physically struck her approximately 50 times during the course of
the relationship. On September 28, 2021, a month or two after Doe ended the
relationship, she noticed I.R. hiding in the bushes outside her apartment as she was
leaving for school. Doe attempted to run back into her apartment but could not prevent
I.R. from entering as well.
I.R. pulled out a pocketknife and put it against Doe’s throat. He demanded that
she walk with him to his house and threatened to kill her if she did not comply. While
walking to I.R.’s house, Doe secretly dialed 911 on her phone, but was forced to hang up
and turn her phone off when I.R. discovered the call. Upon arriving at the house, I.R.
took Doe into the bathroom at knife point and forced her to have intercourse against her
will. He then took Doe into a bedroom and forced her to have intercourse against her will
again.
The Monterey County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition against
I.R. on September 30, 2021, alleging that he committed forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261,
subd. (a)(2); count 1); kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a); count 2); first degree
burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 3); making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422,
subd. (a); count 4); assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1);
count 5); inflicting corporal injury on someone with whom the offender has had a dating
relationship (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 6); and that a previous disposition
regarding an earlier petition had been ineffective (§ 777).
I.R. was detained in juvenile hall pending a jurisdictional hearing. The hearing
commenced on March 21, 2022 and concluded on April 11, 2022. The district attorney
introduced evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 1109, including testimony from
Doe, Doe’s mother, investigating police officers, and a 911 emergency call operator. I.R.
testified in his own defense and introduced additional evidence, including testimony from
his siblings and parents.
2
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegations in
the petition as to each count. The court explained that it found Doe’s testimony to be
credible and that the prosecution’s other evidence and witness testimony corroborated her
statements. In addition, the court found that I.R.’s testimony and that of his parents’
lacked credibility.
The juvenile court then held a disposition hearing on May 2, 2022, at which it
ordered that I.R. remain a ward of the court and remain committed to the Monterey
County Probation Department Youth Center Program for 365 further days.
I.R. timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent I.R. in this court. Counsel filed an opening
brief that states the case and the facts but raises no issues, and asks this court to conduct
an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues.
(See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We notified I.R. of his right to submit
written argument on his own behalf but he has not done so.
Pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire
record and conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. DISPOSITION
The dispositional order is affirmed.
3
___________________________________
Wilson, J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.
______________________________________
Bromberg, J.
People v. I.R.
H050059