In re Christopher B.

Filed 1/17/07  In re Christopher B. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

            APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lawrence Kapiloff, Judge.  (Retired judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.)  Affirmed.

            The juvenile court declared Christopher B. a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, §  602) after entering a true finding that he committed two counts of misdemeanor vandalism.  (Pen. Code, §  594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A).)  The court placed him on probation including a condition he perform 40 hours of community service.  Christopher contends there is insufficient evidence to sustain the true findings.

FACTS

            John Gonzalez testified that around 2:20 or 2:30 p.m. on June 1, 2005, he saw Christopher and two companions scratch the fender, door and panel of vehicles parked in front of Gonzalez's home.  Each of the three individuals had an object in their hand.  Gonzalez went outside his home and the three youths laughed and ran.  On June 3, Gonzalez saw the three individuals repeat the vandalism. 

DISCUSSION

            We affirm a judgment supported by substantial evidence.  (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.)  Substantial evidence is evidence of legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value.  (People v. Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489, 505.)  We must review the entire record most favorably to the order below and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the fact finder could reasonably deduce from the evidence.  If the evidence permits a reasonable trier of fact to conclude the charged party committed the crime, the opinion of a reviewing court that the circumstances may also be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal.  (See Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319; In re Roderick  P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 808-809.)

            Here, Gonzalez testified that he clearly saw Christopher and two companions vandalize the vehicles.  Christopher argues we should consider the evidence insufficient to sustain the true findings because Gonzalez's testimony was inconsistent and contained many " holes."   However, in determining whether the conviction is supported by substantial evidence, we must not usurp the trier of fact's assessment of credibility.

" 'To warrant the rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by a trial court, there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.  [Citations.]  Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.  [Citation.]'  [Citations.]"   (People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 754, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12.)

            Christopher seeks to distinguish testimony that is deceitful from testimony that is innocently false.  He does not claim Gonzalez was deceitful.  Rather, he refers to identification testimony of a witness when the lighting is poor or when the witness has poor vision but is not using glasses.  Neither is true here.  The crimes occurred during the daylight and Gonzalez testified he was wearing glasses.  The trial court believed Gonzalez's testimony that he saw Christopher and his companions scratch the vehicles.  Nothing in the record indicates that this testimony is physically impossible or false on its face.

DISPOSITION

            The juvenile court's order declaring Christopher a ward is affirmed.

McINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

                          McCONNELL, P. J.

                                   O'ROURKE, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.