SAN JOSE
– The 13 year old Gilroy boy facing up to six years
incarceration and $10,000 in fines for firing a pellet gun into a
group of Gilroy High students outside the school on Dec. 11 was
sentenced this morning to a four-month minimum stay in the county’s
juvenile detention ranch.
SAN JOSE – The 13 year old Gilroy boy facing up to six years incarceration and $10,000 in fines for firing a pellet gun into a group of Gilroy High students outside the school on Dec. 11 was sentenced this morning to a four-month minimum stay in the county’s juvenile detention ranch.
The 13 year old, who’s name cannot be released because he is a juvenile, plead guilty to the felony charge of assault with a deadly weapon.
“Do you know what you did was wrong?” Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Eugene M. Hyman asked the boy this morning, receiving a reply of “yes sir.”
“Did your parents teach you right from wrong?” Hyman asked next, receiving the same “yes sir” reply from the boy, who was sitting next to his grandfather.
Before handing down the sentence, Hyman expressed his concern with the boy’s criminal history, which includes an attempted vehicle burglary, possession of stolen property and a misdemeanor assault – all within the last year.
“I’m concerned with your history for being so young and especially your involvement in gangs,” he said. “There are gang people in the ranch where you’re going. Right now you will have to make the decision to bang or not. Tomorrow is a new day.”
During the boy’s 120 days at the boys’ ranch north of Morgan Hill, he will attend academic classes, receive counseling and take anger management courses. Depending on behavior, the boy will be able to visit his family for 24-hour periods as his sentence evolves.
The youth has been in custody at juvenile hall in San Jose since being arrested on Dec. 11.
“I think this was resolved fairly and reasonably,” said Johnny Gogo, the deputy district attorney prosecuting the case. “I think the ranch will benefit the minor.”
Neither the boy’s grandfather nor his defense attorney, Ralph Benitez, were available for comment after the hearing. The boy had been accompanied by his mother during three previous hearings, but she could not attend this morning because of a work conflict.
The boy was ordered to pay only his mandatory court fees.
The confrontation on Dec. 11 began shortly before 8 a.m. on Princevalle Street just east of GHS when a group of four male and one female Gilroy High students met up with a group comprised of the 13-year-old gunman, who is not enrolled in any district school; a male district student who does not attend GHS; and two female GHS students, according to police.
After a brief exchange of words, the 13 year old brandished the gun from his pants and fired six to seven rounds into the opposing group from a close distance, grazing two students’ pants with pellets and hitting another near the ankle, according to police. The pistol contained an air cartridge, making it more powerful than a BB gun, police said.
Following the gunshots, school supervisors in the area immediately alerted Mike Terasaki, the Gilroy Police Department’s resource officer at the school. Terasaki quickly questioned witnesses on the crowded street just east of the school and minutes later apprehended the suspect on Glenview Court, where he had hidden the gun underneath a parked car.
Five police units and an ambulance responded to the scene. The only victim of the shooting, a GHS freshman, was treated at the scene and then taken by his parents to get the pellet lodged in his ankle removed.
GHS Principal Bob Bravo – who has only been at the school since August – said this was the first incident involving a weapon he had seen at or near the school, but he did admit that non-students loitering near the school are a perpetual concern.
Gilroy high administrators did take disciplinary action against several of the seven GHS students involved in the Dec. 11 incident, but the details of the punishments were not released.
“I won’t go into specifics,” Bravo said Dec. 13, “but I can say multiple students did have action taken against them.”
Bravo said the disciplinary action taken against the students was in line with the district policy for a situation involving a confrontation in the school zone, but he would not say if any suspensions were handed down, citing school-parent confidentiality.
