In re Jonathan C.

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 1/29/07  In re
Jonathan C. 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NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered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

 

In re JONATHAN C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,                           v.   JONATHAN C.,   Defendant and Appellant.	F050721   (Super. Ct. No. BJL016048)     OPINION

 

THE COURT^*

            APPEAL from a
judgment of the Superior Court of Madera
County.  Nancy C. Staggs, Temporary Judge.^†

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

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Brian
Alvarez and Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            Following a
contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile
court sustained an allegation against Jonathan C. (appellant) that he
committed battery (Pen. Code, § 242)^[1] and
that the battery was committed with the intent to assist a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd.
(d)).  The court adjudged appellant a ward of the court, declared the offense a
felony under section 186.22, subdivision (d), and placed him on probation, ordering
that he serve five days in juvenile hall and 49 days on house arrest.

            Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the
section 186.22, subdivision (d) alternative sentencing provision.  Specifically,
he contends that there is insufficient evidence that the primary activity of
the gang was the commission of the violent crimes enumerated in section 186.22,
subdivision (e), and insufficient evidence that he committed the battery with
the specific intent that it promote the gang.  We find no merit to appellant's
claims and affirm.

FACTS

Events Surrounding the Crime

            At trial, R.A. described an incident that
occurred on May 5, 2006, as he walked to his grandmother's house.  While
he was walking, a maroon car stopped nearby.  Two males got out of the car and
rushed and punched him.  Appellant, whom R.A. recognized from school, was one
of the two who punched and kicked him.  R.A. claimed he had had no prior
problem with appellant, claimed he himself was not a gang member, and claimed
he did not associate with either Norteno or Sureno gang members.

            Police Officer Daniel Foss responded to a report
of a fight.  Officer Foss spoke with R.A. and observed that he had red marks
and scratches on his back, neck, chest, and stomach.  R.A. told Officer Foss
that his assailants flashed gang signs as they drove by him.  The car then
turned around and two or three individuals got out and began punching and
kicking him.  R.A. identified the driver of the vehicle as appellant, whom he
called â€