THE PEOPLE v. C.V., Defendant and Appellant. (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

INTRODUCTION

The juvenile court sustained a petition charging C.V. (the minor) with possession of a firearm and providing false information to a police officer.   On appeal, the minor's counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that this court independently review the entire record to determine if there are any issues which if resolved in the minor's favor would require reversal or modification of the adjudication and disposition orders.   The minor's counsel also requested that we review the sealed transcript of the in camera proceeding held by the juvenile court in response to the minor's Pitchess ¹ motion.

After reviewing the record, we identified an issue concerning the minor's entitlement to an award of predisposition custody credit and, accordingly, requested letter briefs on that issue.   After reviewing the parties' letter briefs, we have determined the minor was entitled to an award of predisposition custody credits and therefore that the matter must be remanded to the juvenile court for an award of predisposition custody credit.   We have also reviewed the sealed transcript of the in camera proceeding on the Pitchess motion and determined that no discoverable information was withheld.   Because there are no other arguable issues on appeal, the adjudication and disposition orders are otherwise affirmed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On April 8, 2010, Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Marino was working patrol with his partner Officer Barach.   Just before midnight, the officers were stopped at the intersection of Figueroa Street and Avenue 60 when they saw a black Honda Accord approaching their location from behind.   The officers heard brakes screeching, causing Officer Barach to move the officers' patrol car forward to avoid a collision.   The Honda came to a stop behind the officers' patrol car.   When the signal light changed, Officer Barach proceeded forward, changed lanes, and allowed the Honda to pass.   Office Marino observed two passengers in the rear seat and a passenger in the front seat of the Honda.   The occupants appeared to be juveniles “out past curfew hours.”

The officers conducted a traffic stop of the Honda at the intersection of Figueroa and York Avenue.   They illuminated the Honda with the patrol car's spotlights and their flashlights.   As the officers approached the Honda, they noticed the front passenger “slumping forward.”   Officer Marino approached the passenger side of the Honda while Officer Barach approached the driver's side.   Officer Marino saw and heard the front passenger close the glove box.   The front passenger, whom Officer Marino identified in court as the minor, was nervously “playing around with his phone and his watch.”   Officer Marino then observed the minor remove his watch, open the glove box two or three inches, place the watch in the glove box, and close the door rapidly.

Because the driver of the Honda did not have a driver's license and the other occupants could not produce identification, the officers asked them to exit the Honda.   Once the occupants exited the vehicle, the driver gave the officers permission to search the vehicle.   Officer Marino observed Officer Barach conduct a search of the Honda and, when she searched the glove box, she discovered a handgun “behind the glove box.”   The handgun was loaded with six live rounds and had a barrel that was less than 16 inches.   The minor told Officer Marino his name was Carlos Avila.   After the occupants of the Honda were transported to the Northeast station, Officer Marino spoke to the minor's mother and she told him the minor's real name was C.V.²

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 charging the minor in Count 1 with possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a)(1) and in Count 2 with giving false information to a police officer in violation of Penal Code section 148.9, subdivision (a).   Prior to the adjudication hearing, the minor filed a Pitchess motion seeking information about complaints against the two arresting officers.   The juvenile court granted the motion, held an in camera proceeding, and found that there were no discoverable documents.

At the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court heard the testimony of the two arresting officers and admitted four exhibits from the prosecution.   The juvenile court found Counts 1 and 2 true and sustained the petition.   The juvenile court also declared the minor a ward of the court and ordered a long-term camp placement with a maximum term of confinement of four years.   Although the juvenile court inquired as to the amount of predisposition custody credit to which the minor was entitled, the disposition order did not reflect an award of any custody credit.

DISCUSSION

As noted above, appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.   In that brief, however, appointed counsel also requested in a footnote that we review the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing held on the minor's Pitchess motion to determine whether any discoverable information was withheld.   We gave notice to the minor that his appointed counsel had not found any arguable issues and that the minor had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted us to consider.   The minor did not file a supplemental brief.

We examined the entire record to determine if there were any arguable issues on appeal and determined that there was an issue concerning whether the minor was entitled to an award of predisposition custody credit.   We requested letter briefs from the parties on that issue.   In their letter briefs, the parties agree that the minor was entitled to an award of predisposition custody credit.  (See In re Stephon L. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1231–1232.)   We therefore remand the matter to the juvenile court for a determination of the proper amount of predisposition custody credit to which the minor is entitled.

Based on our review of the record, including the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing on the minor's Pitchess motion, we have determined that the juvenile court did not withhold any discoverable evidence and that there are no other issues on appeal.   We are therefore satisfied that the minor's appointed counsel has fully satisfied her responsibilities under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded to the juvenile court to determine the proper amount of predisposition custody credit to be awarded to the minor and to modify the disposition order to reflect an award of custody credit in the amount determined.   In all other respects, the adjudication and disposition orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

KUMAR, J.²

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531..  FN1. Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.

FN2. Officer Barach testified and corroborated the substance of Office Marino's testimony..  FN2. Officer Barach testified and corroborated the substance of Office Marino's testimony.

FN2. Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution..  FN2. Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

KRIEGLER, J.