Opinion
F050485
12-4-2006
In re ADRIAN M., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADRIAN M., Defendant and Appellant.
Harry Zimmerman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Brian Alvarez and Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Levy, J.
The court found that appellant, Adrian M., was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after it sustained allegations charging Adrian with one count each of second degree burglary (count 1/Pen. Code., § 460, subd. (b)), possession of a dirk or dagger (count 2/§ 12020, subd. (a)), and two counts of resisting arrest (counts 3 & 6/§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). On April 25, 2005, the court placed Adrian on probation, set his maximum term of confinement at four years fours months, ordered him to spend 80 hours in the juvenile court work program, and ordered him to register as a gang member. On appeal, Adrian contends the court erred when it ordered him to register as a gang member. We agree and will strike this requirement. In all other respects, we will affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTS
On January 9, 2006, Adrian struggled with a citizen who stopped him after Adrian attempted a "beer run" at a Circle K market in Wasco. He continued to struggle even after sheriff deputies arrived and detained him. A subsequent search of Adrian uncovered a sharpened screwdriver in his left front pants pocket.
On January 30, 2006, Adrian was stopped by a citizen after he was seen running away from the scene of a car burglary. When deputies arrived and attempted to detain him, Adrian initially disobeyed a deputys order to get on the ground.
After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found gang enhancements in counts 1 and 2 not true. Nevertheless, at the dispositional hearing, the court ordered Adrian to register as a gang member pursuant to section 186.30. Further, when defense counsel asked about the registration requirement, the court stated that although the court did not specifically find that Adrians offenses were gang related, Adrian was as active gang member.
DISCUSSION
Adrian contends the court abused its discretion in ordering him to register as a gang member because the court did not find that any of the offenses he committed were gang related and he asks this court to strike the gang registration requirement. Respondent concedes and we agree.
Section 186.30, in pertinent part, requires every juvenile who has a petition sustained for a gang-related crime to register as a gang member.
In People v. Martinez (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 753 the court held that "[o]nly a conviction of the identified offense of participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), the finding of an enhancement for the commission of a crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), or commission of another `gang related crime, trigger the mandatory registration requirement of section 186.30." (Id. at p. 760.)
Since none of the above circumstances apply in the instant case, the court erred when it ordered Adrian to register as a gang member.
DISPOSITION
The gang offender registration requirement is stricken from the judgment, and the trial court is directed to amend its records accordingly. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.