In re K.A. CA3

Filed 11/5/26 In re K.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) In re K.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C104723 Law. (Super. Ct. No. JV141833) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.A., Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for the minor, K.A., has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the minor, we affirm the judgment. FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In May 2023, the day the victim Billy Scott was killed, the minor was at the house of R.Z. smoking marijuana and playing video games. He had a semi-automatic handgun in the front pocket of his hoodie sweatshirt. At some point he went next door to the house of F.A., who told him someone was trying to sell a gun. The minor said he wanted to buy it. The seller was X.G., who asked D.J. to sell for four hundred dollars a BB gun X.G. owned and wanted to pass off as a real firearm. X.G. gave the gun to D.J. wrapped 1 in a red bandana. Scott picked up D.J. near X.G.’s house. D.G. was sitting in the passenger seat. They picked up T.S., who sat in the back seat behind D.J. They drove to the address that X.G. texted Scott to meet the buyer. They arrived at F.A.’s house, parked, and waited for the buyer to come outside. D.J. texted X.G. that they had arrived. D.J.’s window was rolled down two to four inches, enough to hand the BB gun through. The minor and F.A. came out. The minor approached the passenger side of the car. He told Scott to back up to avoid camera surveillance from a nearby residence. Scott backed the car up. The minor proposed to give the seller only $300 until he examined the gun. D.J. gave the minor the BB gun and received the money. The minor immediately knew the gun was fake because of the weight. D.J. acted like he was counting the money. The minor pulled out his gun and fired into the car. The minor intended to shoot the passenger, but he shot the driver Scott in the left thigh. D.J. yelled at Scott to go, and the car sped off. D.J. and T.S. saw that Scott had been shot. When Scott could no longer continue driving, T.S. climbed from the back seat to the driver’s seat and drove; Scott went into the passenger seat. T.S. was trying to get to a hospital but saw a police car and flagged it down. T.S. performed CPR on Scott but he was not responsive. Scott died from a single gunshot wound to the upper portion of his left thigh. In June 2023, the prosecution filed a wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 602, subdivision (a), alleging the minor murdered the victim and personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), § 12022.53, subd. (d).) In addition to the petition, the prosecution filed a motion to transfer the matter to adult criminal court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(1).) The juvenile court found a prima facie showing that detention was necessary and placed the minor in juvenile hall in the temporary care of the probation department. In January 2025, after an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court determined there was prima facie evidence that the minor committed the charged offense. After receiving 2 briefing from the parties and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the prosecution’s motion to transfer the matter to adult criminal court. In June 2025, at the conclusion of the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the Welfare and Institutions section 602 petition that the minor committed murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation of personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court rejected the prosecution’s claim that the minor committed murder in the first degree, finding the offense to be second-degree murder. The juvenile court adjudged the minor continued as a ward of the court, committed the minor to a secure youth treatment facility, set a baseline of five years, and set a maximum period of confinement of 20 years with actual confinement not to exceed the age of 25 years. The juvenile court awarded 832 days of precommitment credit, ordered victim restitution in an amount to be determined, and ordered the minor and his parents liable for payment of restitution. The minor filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Minor’s appointed counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Minor was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. We have not received any communication from minor. We have undertaken an examination of the record and conclude there is no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to him. 3  DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. /s/ HULL, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/ ROBIE, J. /s/ MAURO, J. 4