In re Jairo V
Filed 6/20/06 In re Jairo V. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re JAIRO V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B184589 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ12927) |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAIRO V., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert L. Ambrose, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions.
Ronnie Duberstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The minor, Jairo V., appeals from the July 6, 2005 order declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placing him at home on probation. The juvenile court sustained the allegations of a May 16, 2005 petition charging the minor with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code,[1] § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The minor argues: the evidence is insufficient; the juvenile court failed to designate whether the assaults with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury were felonies or misdemeanors; a probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad; and the clerk's minute order must be corrected. We affirm the wardship order, reverse the dispositional order, and remand to the juvenile court.
First, the minor argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the juvenile court's finding that the pellet gun he used was a deadly weapon or that he used force likely to produce great bodily injury. We review the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. (Jackson v. Virginia (19799) 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466; People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303; Taylor v. Stainer (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 907, 908-909; see also In re Cheri T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1404; In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1088-1089 [standard of proof is the same in juvenile proceedings as that required in adult criminal trials]; In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275 [same].) At approximately 7:15 p.m. on May 11, 2005, Walter G. was on the corner of 95th and Hickory streets with several friends. The minor and another companion approached them. The minor and his friends began shooting a pellet gun in the direction of Walter. He was hit in the stomach with the pellets. Walter still had a scar on his stomach at the time of the adjudication hearing. Thereafter, two or three of Walter's companions grabbed the minor. Walter forced the minor to discharge the remaining pellets in the ground. At approximately 10:30 p.m. the same evening, the minor shot pellets in the direction of Walter as well as a friend.
At approximately 7:20 p.m. on May 12, 2005, Walter's aunt, Doris I., returned to his grandmother's home after visiting the police station. Ms. I. had gone to the police station with Walter and several relatives, including his grandmother, regarding the pellet gun incidents of the previous night. As they got out of the car, the minor and three or four other individuals began shooting pellet guns in Ms. I.'s direction. Ms. I. immediately telephoned the police. Neither Ms. I. nor any of the family members were hit by the pellets. The police arrived and took a report. However, after the police left, the minor and his companions began shooting pellets in their direction again. Walter's grandmother was looking directly at the minor when he shot at her. The minor was also shooting at Ms. I. Ms. I. was hit in the buttocks area, causing a thumb-sized bruise. The door of Walter's grandmother's car was damaged by a pellet which left a hole. Ms. I. called the police again. Ms. I. told the police that the minor was the individual that shot her.
Section 245, subdivision (a)(1) provides in pertinent part, â€
