Filed 4/13/17 In re D.S. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE


In re D.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.S.,
Defendant and Appellant.




A149222

(Solano County
Super. Ct. No. J43221)


Appellant D.S., a minor, appeals from a dispositional order issued after the juvenile court sustained an allegation that appellant committed vandalism. Appellant argues the juvenile court’s ruling is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In October 2015, the People filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) alleging appellant committed felony vandalism by causing more than $400 in damage to a vehicle owned by Ryan Nichols (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)).
A contested hearing was held in May 2016. Nichols testified that one evening the previous October, he and two friends were waiting at the drive-through of a McDonald’s. Six or seven minors rode bicycles very close to his car. One of the minors “smacked” a cigarette out of Nichols’s friend’s hand and said “ ‘F your cigarette.’ ” When Nichols and his friends stepped out of the car, the minors got off their bicycles and, Nichols testified, “we could tell right away that they just wanted to fight.” Nichols and his friends got back in the car. As they were leaving the parking lot, one of the minors threw something at the car. Another minor “crashed” his bicycle into the passenger side of the car; Nichols identified this minor as appellant. Yet another minor tried to punch Nichols through the window. Nichols drove to his friend’s house nearby and they called the police. The minors followed and continued to yell and threaten Nichols and his friends. One minor was carrying an object resembling a small bat and “looked like they wanted to use it as a weapon.” Nichols inspected his car after the incident and found dents and a tire mark.
A deputy sheriff testified he was dispatched to the area that evening and detained appellant. Appellant was with other minors who fled the scene. Appellant was holding what appeared to be a pipe, but was in fact a set of bicycle handlebars.
The court sustained the allegation as to misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)).
DISCUSSION
Appellant first argues there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was the vandal. Appellant contends Nichols’s identification was unreliable because he was unable to provide any distinguishing details about the vandal and was distracted when the vandalism took place.
“ ‘ “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.” ’ ” (People v. Ennis (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 721, 728.) “The inherently improbable standard addresses the basic content of the testimony itself—i.e., could that have happened?—rather than the apparent credibility of the person testifying. . . . The only question is: Does it seem possible that what the witness claimed to have happened actually happened?” (Id. at p. 729.) The juvenile court credited Nichols’s identification of appellant as the vandal, rejecting trial counsel’s argument that the identification was unreliable. Because the credited testimony is neither physically impossible nor inherently improbable, we cannot reject the identification.
Appellant next argues there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the damage was inflicted maliciously, because the bicycle crashed into Nichols’s “moving vehicle during a hectic situation.”
“To commit vandalism a defendant must do an act ‘maliciously.’ [Citation.] . . . [A] person acts maliciously either when acting with ‘a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person’ or with the ‘intent to do a wrongful act.’ ” (People v. Kurtenbach (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1282, italics omitted.) Nichols testified appellant was part of a group of minors acting aggressively towards him and his friends at the McDonald’s. Nichols also testified one of the minors was later carrying what looked like a bat in a threatening manner, and law enforcement found appellant carrying bicycle handlebars. The juvenile court could reasonably infer that appellant intentionally crashed his bicycle into Nichols’s vehicle. (People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 132 [“We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the convictions as long as a rational trier of fact could have found guilt based on the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.”].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



 




SIMONS, J.



We concur.




JONES, P.J.




NEEDHAM, J.





(A149222)