In re Christopher M

Filed 5/11/06 In re Christopher M. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Dale Ikeda, Judge.

Jackie Menaster, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Connie A. Proctor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Summary of Proceedings

Christopher M., a minor, was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code,^[1] section 602. The allegations of the wardship petition are as follows: count 1, receiving stolen property, a motor vehicle (a violation of Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)), and count 2, hit-and-run driving (a misdemeanor violation of Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)). The juvenile court found both allegations true and ordered Christopher committed to the Elkhorn Delta boot camp program. The court set Christopher's maximum period of confinement at three years, two months.

FACTS

On October 21, 2004, Tyra Hernandez reported her 2001 Hyundai Elantra stolen. On October 23, 2004, the Elantra was involved in an accident with a parked car in Clovis. Clovis Police Officers Drew Mosher and Joshua Kirk responded to investigate. When Officer Mosher arrived, there was no one claiming to be the driver of the vehicle. The officer was told by witnesses that people had run from the accident. The officers checked the area for a driver and were unable to find one. Officer Mosher found no note or identifying information on the parked car. The joint owners of the parked car did not see the collision but did see people running from the scene.^[2]

Later investigation connected Christopher to the car. When Christopher was interviewed, after being Mirandized,^[3] he told the officer that Phillip Phene, Jr., had burglarized a home and stolen the Elantra. During the two days between the burglary and the accident, several juveniles shared driving the car, and they all knew it was stolen. Christopher admitted driving the car at the time of the accident. He said he fled the scene because he was scared and intoxicated.

discussion

Christopher raises two issues on appeal. He claims his conviction of the hit-and-run offense was error because there is no corpus delicti; the only evidence tying him to the offense is his own admission. Second, he claims the juvenile court abused its discretion in setting the maximum period of confinement because it failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the offense as required by section 731, subdivision (b). We reject both of these contentions and will affirm the juvenile court's orders.

I. Corpus delicti

The rule in California is that every conviction must be supported by some proof of corpus delicti independent from the extrajudicial statements, confessions, or admissions of the defendant. The purpose of the rule is to assure that the defendant is not convicted of committing a crime that never occurred. (See People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083; People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169.) Corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, requires proof of the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. The prosecutor need only make a prima facie showing that permits a reasonable inference that a crime was committed. (Id. at p. 1171.) â€