In re Jonathan S.
Filed 6/12/13 In re Jonathan S. CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FIVE
In re JONATHAN S., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B244339
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. KJ37170)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JONATHAN S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County.
Phyllis Shibata, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 21.). Affirmed.
Marta I.
Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr.,
Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The minor,
Jonathan S., appeals from a wardship order based upon a finding he committed an
assault by means of force likely to inflict great bodily
& Inst. Code, § 602.) We affirm the
wardship order.
First, the
minor contends the evidence was insufficient because he acted in
self-defense. This contention has no
merit. We review this contention for
substantial evidence. (
318; In Babak S. (1993) 18
Cal.App.4th 1077, 1088-1089.) The minor
and several friends precipitated an incident which resulted in a bottle of
water being thrown on a high school gym floor.
The minor’s skateboard was taken from him. This was because the minor was threatening to
strike another minor with the skateboard.
The victim began walking towards the high school gym. The minor approached the victim from
behind. The victim was placed in a
“naked choke hold†for “about 20 seconds.
The choking continued until a band instructor physically removed the
minor’s hands from the victim’s throat.
The victim was having a “lot of trouble†breathing. Neither the minor nor any other person was in
jeopardy when the victim was choked.
This constitutes substantial evidence the minor was not in imminent
danger of suffering bodily injury. This
supports the juvenile court’s rejection of the minor’s self-defense
contention. (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1064;
Second, the minor contends the
juvenile court abused its discretion in declining to deem the offense to be a
misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 17, subd.
(b); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 702.)
The juvenile court must evaluate:
the nature the minor’s conduct; the minor’s attitude towards the
offense; and the minor’s character traits as evidenced during the
proceedings. (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 978;
537, 547.) We review this contention for
an abuse of discretion. (
supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 977; People v. Russel (1968) 69 Cal.2d 187, 194, overruled on a
different point in People v. Anderson (2001)
25 Cal. 4th 543, 575.)
No abuse of discretion
occurred. The minor choked the victim
for 20 seconds. The evidence is viewed
in a light most favorable to the wardship order. The minor did not stop choking the victim
until physically restrained by a school instructor. While being choked, the victim had difficulty
breathing. The instructor had taken the
minor’s skateboard because the youngster and several others were interfering
with a high school drum line practice.
The minor was told the skateboard would be returned to his parents.
The minor’s character traits as
developed during the proceedings are inauspicious. He gave two different versions of the
incident; one of them under the oath and the other to a police officer. Each version minimized the minor’s
culpability. The minor claimed the
victim was only placed in a headlock.
The juvenile court found the victim was choked. The minor claim the “headlock†lasted only
eight seconds. The evidence accepted by
the juvenile court indicated the chokehold lasted 20 seconds. Finally, the minor is known in the community
as “loose cannon.â€
The wardship order is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER,
P. J.
We concur:
KRIEGLER,
J.
O’NEILL, J.
of the Ventura County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
