In re A.R. CA4/3 filed 2/20/13 A

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » 4th Appellate District Division 3 » 2013 » In re A.R. CA4/3 filed 2/20/13 A

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: G047201

Case Date: 02/20/2013

Preview:Filed 2/20/13 In re A.R. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

In re A.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G047201 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DL040512) v. OPINION A.R., Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah J. Chuang, Judge. Affirmed. James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. * * *

We appointed counsel to represent appellant A.R. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on appellant's behalf. On the first petition, after the juvenile court explained his rights to minor A.R., he freely and voluntarily waived them. A.R. then admitted he stole property belonging to Mark E. On a preprinted admission form, item number 15 states "I offer to the Court the following facts as the basis for my admission:" Handwritten it states: "On 1/3/11, in Orange County, I unlawfully stole an iPhone belonging to Mark E." The court placed A.R. on probation for six months with one of the terms and conditions that A.R. complete 60 hours of community service. A second petition was filed on November 3, 2011, alleging A.R. violated section 11357, subdivision (b) of the Health and Safety Code, possession of marijuana, 28.5 grams or less. The probation report prepared prior to the next scheduled hearing stated A.R.'s "progress on probation can only be described as dismal." On February 21, 2012, the court declared minor a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The second petition was dismissed at the request of petitioner on the same date. A third petition, this one titled "PETITION SUBSEQUENT" was filed on March 14, 2012. This one charged receiving stolen property, a skateboard, in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a). A notice of probation violation, the fourth petition, was filed on April 12, 2012. The juvenile court once again explained A.R.'s rights to him and he freely and voluntarily waived them. On April 24, 2012, the court ordered A.R. to be removed from his home and placed under the care, custody and control of the Orange County Probation Department for commitment.

2

On June 21, 2012, a warrant was issued for A.R.'s arrest after he failed to appear for his pretrial hearing on the third petition. He was arrested the next day. Trial on the third petition commenced on July 13, 2012. The victim, Scott P. testified he was a student attending high school in Orange County. He said on December 8, 2011 at approximately 7:50 a.m., he put his skateboard in his locker. He did not lock his locker. At the end of the school day, he went to his locker to get something he needed for football practice, and found that his skateboard was missing. Sometime thereafter, on the same day, Scott saw A.R. with his skateboard. He knew it was his because it was "light brown with some brown stripes and it had like a fishtail at the back" and "it has a dent in the front of it and half peeled off price sticker on the bottom of it." Scott P. said to A.R., "Hey, that's my skateboard." A.R. responded, "No, I just bought it." A.R. told Scott he paid $60 for it. Scott told A.R., "Well, that skateboard just got stolen from my football locker." Kristi P. is Scott's mother. A couple of days after she was told her son's skateboard was stolen, Kristi P. saw A.R. outside a supermarket. When asked what she said to A.R., she testified; "I said my son saw him riding his -- he saw him riding his skateboard and that he asked him to give it back and he said, yes, and he said, do you still have it and he said no, and he said I gave it back to the person that I bought it from." Kristi P. asked A.R. from whom he bought the skateboard, and A.R. replied that he couldn't say. She told A.R.: "If you would just give us -- either tell us who, you know, you gave the skateboard back to, or if you can just ask for the guy to give it back to you to give it to us, it will be over." A.R. told her he didn't know who the guy was. Marc Trocchio is the assistant principal at the high school in which Scott P. attended. A.R. told Trocchio: "He purchased the board from a boy named Kenneth [S.]" for $100. Trocchio contacted Kenneth S. During an investigation, A.R. was

3

uncooperative, argumentative and defiant. After concluding his investigation, Trocchio determined A.R. deserved a five-day home suspension for stealing the skateboard. On July 16, 2012, the court found the allegations in the third petition to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. A.R. was continued as a ward of the juvenile court, and placed in custody. The minute order from that day states: "Court is aware count 1 of amended petition 003 is a wobbler and the court chooses to use its discretion to reduce it to a misdemeanor." (Capitalization omitted.) A.R.'s appeal is from the order made on this date. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel suggests one issue for this court's consideration: "Is the evidence sufficient to support a finding that appellant received or withheld stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a)?" In addressing challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, "the reviewing court must examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence--evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value--such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citations.] The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] Although it is the jury's duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] `"If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. [Citation.]"' [Citation.]" (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053-1054.)

4

We have examined the entire record. Here A.R. was observed with the skateboard shortly after it was discovered missing. He gave different stories regarding the circumstances under which he acquired it. He was defiant and uncooperative when a school official conducted an investigation. We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings. We have examined the record and found no other arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in appellant's own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from appellant. The judgment is affirmed.

MOORE, J. WE CONCUR:

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

IKOLA, J.

5

Download G047201.PDF