Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

IN RE ERIK G., F061155. (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals of California Number: incaco20110414055 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 14, 2011
Latest Update: Apr. 14, 2011
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION THE COURT * On April 2, 2010, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, charging appellant Erik G., a minor, with possession of a concealable weapon, a felony, and possession of live ammunition, a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, 12101(a)(1) and (b).) After the court denied motions to suppress and dismiss, appellant admitted the allegations. Following the disposition hearing, the court removed appellant from the cus
More

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINION

THE COURT*

On April 2, 2010, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, charging appellant Erik G., a minor, with possession of a concealable weapon, a felony, and possession of live ammunition, a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, §§ 12101(a)(1) and (b).) After the court denied motions to suppress and dismiss, appellant admitted the allegations. Following the disposition hearing, the court removed appellant from the custody of his parents and ordered him placed in juvenile hall for 45 days, but credited him with six days for time served and permitted him to complete the remaining 39 days on home commitment. The court also placed him on probation subject to the general terms and conditions. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.

FACTS

City of Modesto Police Officer Randy Bolinger was assisting with a probation search of Nicholas Rodriguez at a house in Modesto, which was in an area known for gang activity and drug sales. As Bolinger pulled up to the house — the first officer to arrive — he saw appellant standing in the front yard. Appellant looked like a gang member; he was wearing baggy clothing and a red hat. Bolinger asked appellant what he was doing there and appellant responded he was visiting a friend, Nick Rodriguez. Bolinger decided to pat search appellant for weapons because he had to walk past him and turn his back to him as he knocked on the door. Bolinger asked appellant to turn around so he could pat him down for weapons. Appellant turned around without protest. As he did so, Bolinger saw a bulge in appellant's rear pants pocket made by an object with a dark top. The object was completely concealed, but felt like a gun to Bolinger when he grabbed it. Bolinger pushed appellant to the ground, arrested him, and removed a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver loaded with five rounds.

According to appellant, Bolinger told him to turn around, place his hands on his head, and asked if he could pat appellant down for weapons. Appellant "told him `yeah.'" He felt he could refuse the officer's request to search him, but he did not feel free to leave.

The Court denied the motion to suppress evidence, finding the officer's pat search for weapons reasonable.

Appellant's motion to dismiss challenged the constitutionality of Penal Code section 12101, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b) under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570 and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court rejected the challenge reasoning that Heller enumerated several types of limitations on gun ownership and possession that remain viable. Further, while Heller did not specifically refer to juveniles, United States v. Rene E. (1st Cir. 2009) 583 F.3d 8, 16, rejected a Second Amendment challenge and upheld restrictions on a minor's possession of handguns and ammunition. Finally, Penal Code section 12101 did not absolutely ban a minor's possession of handguns and ammunition; it imposed reasonable restrictions.

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

FootNotes


* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer