In re Miguel H.
Filed 5/15/06 In re Miguel H. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
In re MIGUEL H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B182948 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YJ25617) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIGUEL H., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Irma J. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.
Jolene Larimore, 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, Ana R. Duarte and Stacy S. Schwartz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant Miguel H. appeals from the order declaring him a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. A three-count petition alleged that he had committed the crime of assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) against Jaime O. (count 1) and Michael O. (count 2), and that he possessed a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1); count 3). The juvenile court sustained the allegation of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury against Jaime O., reduced the allegation to misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240) as to victim Michael O., and found the allegation of possession of a deadly weapon not true. The court declared appellant a ward of the court, placed him in the Camp Community Placement Program, and declared the maximum term of confinement to be four years, two months. On appeal, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the allegation that he committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury on Jaime O. We affirm.
EVIDENTIARY BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2004, eight-year old Jaime O. was playing with his nine-year old brother Michael on the sidewalk near their home in Inglewood. A friend of Michael's named Luis was across the street, throwing rocks at appellant and another boy. Appellant, who was 13 years old, told Luis to stop, and Luis complied.
Appellant had purchased a BB gun from an ice cream vendor for $3. The gun was made of plastic, and fired plastic BB pellets. Appellant crossed the street with the gun to where Jaime and Michael were playing. Appellant said, â€
