In re Francisco H.
Filed 7/26/07 In re Francisco H. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re FRANCISCO H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B192970 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KJ26164) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO H., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Phyllis Shibata, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Patricia A. Andreoni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Francisco H. appeals from the order continuing wardship entered following true findings on a petition alleging residential burglary, grand theft of an automobile, unlawful taking of a vehicle, and receiving stolen property. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of burglary. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Shortly after 3:00 a.m. on June 27, 2006, the minor was stopped in Hacienda Heights driving a 2004 Chevrolet Suburban. The minor was in possession of the keys to the Suburban, as well as two other sets of car keys and three cellular phones. Investigation led the sheriffs deputy who stopped the minor to the Whittier residence of Manuel Gonzales, which was about seven miles away. Gonzales, who had gone to bed about 10:30 p.m. the night before, was awakened by the deputy about 3:30 a.m. Upon being awakened, Gonzales realized that his house had been broken into and numerous items, including keys and cell phones, were missing. Gonzaless 2004 Suburban had also been taken.
The minor was interviewed by Los Angeles County Sheriffs Detective Philip Busch on June 27. After waiving his Miranda[1] rights, the minor stated that he had received a telephone call from his stepfather, who told the minor to pick up the Suburban because the minors uncle had been arrested. The stepfather told the minor where the Suburban was located and that the keys were hidden in a nearby bush. When Busch asked about cell phones, the minor said that they were inside the Suburban when he picked it up at 5:00 a.m. and that he used one of the phones to call a friend. Busch told the minor he had information that the call had been made at an earlier time and that Busch believed the minor was lying. The minor then admitted that he had placed the call earlier than he had stated. When further confronted with the inconsistency in his timeline, the minor stated, Just charge me with the break-in into the house. This statement surprised Busch, who had not said anything about a burglary. Busch asked the minor why he had made that statement. The minor sat in silence and did not respond.
DISCUSSION
The minor contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he committed burglary because there were no fingerprints or other physical evidence to connect him with the Gonzales residence and it is apparent from the context [of the interview with Detective Busch] that [the minors] statement, Just charge me with the break-in into the house, was made to end the badgering and endless interview by the officer. We disagree.
Nothing in the record supports the notion that Busch badgered the minor during the interview or the interview was endless, nor in any other way undermines the validity of what was essentially a confession of the burglary. In addition, [w]hen, as here, a defendant is found in possession of property stolen in a burglary shortly after the burglary occurred, the corroborating evidence of the defendants acts, conduct, or declarations tending to show his guilt need only be slight to sustain the burglary convictions. [Citations.] (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 176.) The evidence in this case was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor committed a burglary. (See People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11; In re Charles G. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 62, 6668.)
DISPOSITION
The order under review is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO, Acting P. J.
We concur:
VOGEL, J.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
[1]Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602].
