I. BACKGROUND

On April 17, 2020, G.R., T.M., and two other minors agreed to “go hit the Target.” Later that day, at approximately 3:39 p.m., G.R. and T.M. entered a Target in Dublin, California wearing face masks and with pillowcases shoved down the front of their pants. The minors jumped the pharmacy counter. G.R. grabbed the right triceps of K.R., the pharmacy technician, pushed him into the pharmacy, and asked him the location of the safe. After K.R. told G.R. he did not know the combination to the safe, G.R. and T.M. fled through the front door. No weapons were seen, and nothing was taken. K.R. was uninjured, but he could feel where G.R. had grabbed him. Soon after, at approximately 4:50 p.m., G.R. and T.M. entered a CVS pharmacy in Danville, California. Both were wearing surgical masks. T.M. entered the restricted area behind the pharmacy counter, grabbed a pharmacy technician, J.G., from behind, and demanded she open the safe. J.G. felt pressure on her lower back, which “felt like a hand,” and feared it was a gun. After J.G. told T.M. she didn’t have the code for the safe, G.R. and T.M. fled through an emergency exit. J.G. did not see G.R. until he and T.M. fled, but believed he had been waiting by a swinging door entrance located on the north side of the pharmacy counter.2 J.G. said she did not sustain any injuries, and declined medical attention. Store employees recognized T.M. and G.R.

2The probation officer’s report characterized G.R.’s role at the Danville CVS as that of a “look out.”

2 as having been in the store earlier that day, and to them, it appeared T.M. and G.R. were casing the store. Around 7:00 p.m. that day in nearby Walnut Creek, deputies conducted a high-risk stop of a vehicle containing G.R., T.M., and another minor. All three were arrested. No weapons were found, and G.R. was not driving the vehicle. In an interview with the probation department, G.R. said he used marijuana once every two months, starting in January 2019; the last time he used was in February 2020. G.R. had completed 62 of 166 attempted high school credits, which put him at least two years behind in school. His attendance report showed between 30 and 43 unexcused absences. He said he did not like school and was often truant. He did, however, express a desire to earn his diploma and get a job. G.R. lived with his mother for the first 14 years of his life and was living with his father at the time of arrest. Family struggles had destabilized his living situation for the year leading up to his arrest. He had no prior criminal history, regretted his actions, and empathized with the victims. On April 21, 2020, the People filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging G.R. had committed felony attempted second degree robbery under sections 211, 212.5, subdivision (c), and 664 (count 1), felony conspiracy to commit grand theft under section 182, subdivision (a)(1) (count 2), and misdemeanor assault likely to produce great bodily injury under section 245, subdivision (a)(4) (count 3). On May 14, 2020, G.R. pled no contest to counts 2 and 3, and the juvenile court dismissed the attempted second degree robbery charge. The court then

3 transferred the case to Solano County based on G.R.’s residence there with his father. On June 22, 2020, the Solano County juvenile court adjudged G.R. a ward of the court. It ordered G.R. confined in juvenile hall for 227 days, 90 of which could be served on electronic monitoring in lieu of custody, with 81 days of credits. The court fashioned the sentence so that G.R. could “catch up” on his high school credits while in custody. Among other conditions, the court ordered him to perform 50 hours of volunteer work, pay a $100 restitution fine, attend school, submit to warrantless search, and refrain from using or possessing marijuana or other drugs.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant’s counsel filed a Wende brief, requesting that we independently review the record to determine whether it contains any arguable issues for appeal. Our review establishes that there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The defendant was properly advised before pleading no contest to counts 2 and 3 of the petition, and there was a sufficient factual basis for his pleas. The conditions of probation were appropriate given the serious nature of G.R.’s criminal conduct and his admissions as to his truancy and drug use. (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486; In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118–1119.) Finally, there is no issue with respect to the court’s imposition of a $100 restitution fine. (People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1469 [failure to object to a restitution fine constitutes waiver].)

4 Having examined the record to ensure that defendant receives effective appellate review, we find no colorable error or basis for further briefing. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BROWN, J.

WE CONCUR:

POLLAK, P. J.

STREETER, J.

In re G.R. (A160378)

5