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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.