In re Brandon A. CA5
abundy's Membership Status
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 06:01:2017 - 11:31:27
Biographical Information
Contact Information
Submission History
In re K.P. CA6
P. v. Price CA6
P. v. Alvarez CA6
P. v. Shaw CA6
Marriage of Lejerskar CA4/3
Find all listings submitted by abundy
By nbuttres
02:20:2018
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re BRANDON A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRANDON A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
F075311
(Super. Ct. No. JJD069638)
OPINION
THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Robert Anthony Fultz, Judge.
Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Darren K. Indermill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
In January 2017, officials discovered a broken fire sprinkler in the cell where appellant Brandon A. was housed at a juvenile detention center. Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true that appellant had committed misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 2). Appellant was continued as a ward of the court and committed to a program for 24 months. He was ordered to pay restitution, in addition to other imposed terms and conditions.
On appeal, appellant contends there was insufficient evidence of malice to support the juvenile court’s order. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2017, appellant was housed at a juvenile detention facility and a fire alarm activated in his housing pod. Detention officials responded and found water pouring from appellant’s cell. The water was originating from a broken fire sprinkler inside his cell. The fire sprinkler “had been popped.” It was located at the back of appellant’s cell “on the wall, approximately six inches to a foot below the ceiling.” Appellant was the only one locked in that room when this happened.
A responding detention official observed one of the metal pieces from the sprinkler head on the floor of appellant’s cell. In order for the sprinkler to spray the water, the sprinkler head had to be manually manipulated. The official observed that the sprinkler system had been broken. It cost approximately $645.43 to clean up and repair the damage caused in appellant’s cell.
DISCUSSION
I. Sufficient Evidence Supports The Conviction For Vandalism.
Appellant argues there is insufficient evidence of malice to support the juvenile court’s finding of vandalism.
A. Standard of review.
Our review is governed by the same principles applicable to adult criminal convictions, “i.e., the evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the finder of fact. [Citation.]” (In re Dennis B. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 687, 697.) We review the entire record and decide whether it contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could make the necessary finding beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence must be reasonable, credible and of solid value. We presume every inference in support of the judgment that the finder of fact could reasonably have made. We do not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate witness credibility. We cannot reverse the judgment merely because the evidence could be reconciled with a contrary finding. (People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 293.)
B. Analysis.
Appellant argues that nobody observed him break the sprinkler head in his cell. He contends the required malice cannot be presumed from the evidence presented, and he asserts that the juvenile court’s finding was based on speculation. We disagree.
A person is guilty of vandalism if he or she maliciously damages or destroys property belonging to someone else. (§ 594, subd. (a)(2) & (3).) The Penal Code defines “maliciously” as “an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.” (§ 7, subd. (4).)
Here, appellant was alone in his cell when the fire sprinkler broke, and a piece of it fell to the floor. It was not possible for the sprinkler to emit water without being manually manipulated. Although nobody saw appellant break the sprinkler head, a logical inference exists that he intentionally did so.
“An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.” (Evid. Code, § 600, subd. (b).) A factual finding may be an inference drawn from the evidence but it cannot be based on mere suspicion, conjecture or guess work. (People v. Davis (2013) 57 Cal.4th 353, 360.)
Here, the inference that appellant broke the sprinkler is not based on speculation, as appellant argues, but is reasonably drawn from other admissible evidence. It is reasonable to infer that appellant committed vandalism.
To bolster his claim, appellant also raises concerns regarding his mental health. In December 2016, just prior to the commission of the present crime, a violation of probation detention hearing took place with appellant for other unrelated matters. During that hearing, a probation officer expressed concern that appellant had mental health issues that may have been affecting his ability to program. The officer asked the juvenile court for a full psychological evaluation, which the court ordered. Appellant, however, refused to participate in a clinical interview and psychological testing. He also refused to participate in individual sessions with a therapist.
Appellant argues that his “unaddressed psychological issues cast doubt” on whether he acted maliciously regarding the vandalism charge. He asserts it is “reasonable to assume that his mental impairment would adversely affect his thought process and behavior” while confined in this cell. We find this unpersuasive.
Although appellant refused to participate in offered mental health services leading up to this crime, nothing in this record suggests anything other than an intent to do a wrongful act when he broke the sprinkler head in his cell. The record makes clear that he could not have accidentally broken this sprinkler. No evidence establishes or infers that appellant lacked the ability to plan and execute malicious intent.
Based on this record, a rational finder of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed vandalism. This evidence was reasonable, credible and of solid value. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding and this claim fails.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order appealed from is affirmed.
Description | In January 2017, officials discovered a broken fire sprinkler in the cell where appellant Brandon A. was housed at a juvenile detention center. Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true that appellant had committed misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 2). Appellant was continued as a ward of the court and committed to a program for 24 months. He was ordered to pay restitution, in addition to other imposed terms and conditions. On appeal, appellant contends there was insufficient evidence of malice to support the juvenile court’s order. We affirm. |
Rating | |
Views | 11 views. Averaging 11 views per day. |