Filed 5/5/17 In re M.T. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----




In re M.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C077335


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. JV134658)



The minor, M.T. and a group of friends, including the victim, Cameron Myers, traveled to San Francisco where the group attacked and killed Cameron. In addition to being beaten, Cameron was stabbed several times and suffered a hatchet wound to the back of his head. He died within two hours of the attack.
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the San Francisco County Juvenile Court found that M.T. had committed second degree murder, a lesser offense to the charged offense of first degree murder. M.T. was transferred to Sacramento County for disposition, where he was continued a ward of the court and committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities for a maximum period of 15 years to life, not to exceed the statutory limitation for such commitment to age 23.
M.T. argues there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of implied malice. We shall affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2013, Christine Semenero lived on a street ending in a cul-de-sac in San Francisco. Early in the morning, she was awakened when she heard someone screaming for help. She looked out her window and saw a male sitting down on the curb. She immediately called 911. She could see that the person was bleeding. The 911 operator told Semenero to ask whether the victim knew who had attacked him. He said he did. She asked where they were, and he said they were gone.
San Francisco Police officers responded at 1:45 a.m. The victim was covered in blood, appeared to have two stab wounds to his back, and was having difficulty breathing. He had a knife sheath on his hip, but no knife. The victim said his name was Cameron, and nodded affirmatively when asked whether he knew the person who had stabbed him and whether the person or persons had left in a vehicle. The police officers followed the ambulance that took Cameron to the hospital. The officers left the hospital at 3:30 a.m. because they learned Cameron had died.
At 3:57 a.m. Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff Todd Hoganson received a call to respond to a residence in Sacramento County because of a report of someone being stabbed in the hand. When Deputy Hoganson arrived at the residence, the minor, M.T., was being loaded into an ambulance. Deputy Hoganson interviewed M.T. at the hospital. M.T. told Hoganson he had been in San Francisco when a group of people--two Hispanic, one White, and one Black-- tried to stab him in Haight-Ashbury. He said he had gone to San Francisco with a group including Connor, Andrew, and some girls. They had gone in Andrew’s car, which was a black Chevrolet. He said his hand had been injured when one of the group of attackers had tried to stab him. When he was running away, one of them threw a hatchet at him, but missed.
Deputy Hoganson went back to M.T.’s house to speak with Connor. Connor’s story was that they had been attacked by a lone White male who suddenly appeared with a knife and tried to stab them.
Back in San Francisco, officers returned to the crime scene to search during daylight. They located a small head of a hatchet on the asphalt in the cul-de-sac.
Dr. Amy Hart, forensic pathologist, found Cameron’s cause of death was loss of blood resulting from multiple traumatic injuries, particularly a combination of sharp force injuries and blunt force injuries. The sharp force injuries were a chop-type wound to the back of the head made with a weapon such as an ax or hatchet, and three knife wounds to the back. The victim also had knife injuries to his arms and hands consistent with defensive wounds. There were approximately 18 areas of blunt force injuries.
Testimony of Cheyenne Curtis
Cheyenne Curtis, age 18 at the time of trial, testified that she had known M.T. since middle school. He was friends with Connor and Mason, who were brothers. On May 14, 2013, Connor asked her if she wanted to go to San Francisco with him. She agreed, and he showed up at her house with M.T., Mason, Phillip, Andrew, and Cameron. They arrived in Andrew’s black rental car. The group left Cheyenne’s house in Grass Valley around 7:00 p.m. They picked up Abby Fontana and Cameron’s car before heading to San Francisco. Cameron drove his car, and Cheyenne and Connor were passengers. Abby drove Andrew’s car with everyone else.
At one point they stopped for gas in San Francisco, and while Cameron was out of the car Connor told her that the people in Andrew’s car were talking about trying to make their own “blood group” and they were planning to beat up Cameron and steal his car. After getting gas, they stopped at a store in San Francisco because Cheyenne and Abby had to go to the bathroom. While they were walking around trying to find a bathroom, she heard M.T. and Connor talking, but she could not hear full sentences. She heard the words “car” and “stealing.”
After using the restroom they went back to the cars and drove to the bay. They drove to a cul-de-sac and all got out. Both cars were parked in the circular part of the cul-de-sac. The boys walked down to the bay, but the two girls got into Andrew’s car because they were cold. One of the boys, she thought it was Andrew, came to the car and said something to the girls that prompted Abby to move the car. A minute or two later Cheyenne could see what looked like all of them fighting. They were kicking and punching. She could not tell whom she was seeing because it was dark. One person was on the ground, and the others were surrounding him.
They fought, then everyone started running toward the car. The first person to reach the car was M.T. M.T. entered the car, and they could see his hands were cut to the bone. Cheyenne also saw Cameron running, but he was running for his life. She could only see the back of him and he had blood all over his back. Everyone yelled at Abby to drive away, and she did.
They drove back to Sacramento. As they were driving, Connor showed her a car key and told her it was Cameron’s. He then threw it out the window. Cheyenne did not remember seeing anyone with a knife in the car, but she had seen Connor with a knife earlier in the day, and he usually carried a knife.
Connor told Cheyenne that M.T. had started the fight when he hit Cameron in the back of the head. Cameron then threw a hatchet at M.T. M.T. picked up the hatchet and threw it back at Cameron. Cameron pulled out a knife and tried to cut Connor, slicing his nose. Connor then admitted he had pulled out a knife and stabbed Cameron. M.T. was punching Cameron at the same time Connor was stabbing him. Mason admitted kicking Cameron in the head five times. They went to M.T.’s mother’s house. She called an ambulance and the police came.
Testimony of Abby
Abby testified at the hearing under a grant of use immunity. Cheyenne Curtis was her best friend at the time of the incident. On May 14, 2013, she received a text from Cheyenne asking if she wanted to go to San Francisco with her, Conner, and some other friends. She said yes, and they (Andrew, Cheyenne, Connor, & Mason) came to pick her up. They arrived in Andrew’s rental car--a black Chevrolet. They drove to Auburn to pick up the rest of the group: Phillip, Cameron, and M.T. They also picked up Cameron’s car, a white Toyota. Abby’s story matched Cheyenne’s as to who was traveling in which car. She also recalled stopping in San Francisco to use the restroom, remembered that the stop was at Pier 39, and also remembered stopping at a gas station in San Francisco. At the gas station, Connor said that either he was, or they were, going to beat up Cameron and take his car. She remembered that after leaving Pier 39, she, Cheyenne, Phillip, and Andrew were in Andrew’s car, and everyone else was in Cameron’s car.
She remembered that after they got to the cul-de-sac, they parked. The guys got out and walked into a “back part.” She stayed in the car with Cheyenne. After about 10 minutes, M.T. came to the car and said, “It’s going to happen now.” M.T. told her to stay in the car because she would be the one to drive the car away. Because Abby did not want to be around when they fought, she moved the car from where they were parked at the end of the cul-de-sac, to the building at the other end of the road. They turned the car around so that it faced the cul-de-sac. As she watched, she saw “a whole bunch of chaos.” She told Cheyenne, “Oh, my god. They’re really doing it. They’re really fighting him.” She saw Phillip and Mason walking back, and started driving toward them. Then she saw M.T. with blood all over his hands.
All the boys got into the car, except for Cameron. She saw Cameron walking to a grassy hill, where he sat down, but she was mostly worried about M.T.’s hands. After they were all in the car, she drove away. She asked what had happened, and Connor said he had stabbed Cameron. She had seen Connor with a knife when they had stopped at the gas station earlier. They talked about what they would say had happened. They were going to say they were on Haight-Ashbury and a bum came up and jumped them.
After they got to M.T.’s house in Sacramento, she asked Connor what had happened. He told her they started fighting and “someone hit Cameron in the back of the head or there was an ax involved or something.” Connor said he had stabbed Cameron seven times in the back in the shoulder area.
Police interviewed Abby on May 31, 2013. At that time, she said M.T. told her he hit Cameron in the back of the head and knocked him down. Connor told her M.T. had started it when he hit Cameron in the back of the head. M.T. kept saying, “For a big guy he got up quick.”
Testimony of Connor
Connor testified the attack started when M.T. hit Cameron in the back of the head. He said that M.T. and Andrew had told him earlier that they wanted to beat up Cameron. M.T. told Cameron he hit him because he “flexed” on him. Connor thought M.T. had simply punched Cameron because he did not see anything in M.T.’s hand. Cameron had grabbed his knife and started swinging it at M.T. Connor heard M.T. scream that his hand had been cut. Connor stepped in to intervene, and Cameron swung the knife at him, hitting him on the nose. Cameron started to run away, and M.T. chased him. He saw Cameron and M.T. facing off, and M.T. was holding something in his hand. M.T. threw something at Cameron, but missed. He found out later that the something was a hatchet. Cameron picked it back up and threw it at M.T. Cameron started to run away. M.T. ran after him and tackled him to the ground. Connor ran up to the two of them. He thought Cameron still had a knife, so he stabbed Cameron to stop the fight. He was not sure how many times he stabbed Cameron. He had the knife in his pocket. After stabbing Cameron, he threw the knife into the bushes. They all got in the car and left.
Testimony of M.T.
M.T. testified in his own defense. He denied a prior agreement to rob and attack Cameron. According to his testimony, the fight began when Andrew walked up behind Cameron and hit him on the back of the head with a hatchet. Cameron then pulled out a knife. Cameron, not knowing who had hit him, came toward M.T. and Mason. M.T. tried to grab the knife from Cameron, but got stabbed in the left hand, instead. At this point Connor rushed in with a knife and stood in front of M.T. and Mason to defend them. Cameron ran to get away from Connor and Andrew. Andrew and Connor chased Cameron. M.T., Mason, and Phillip followed because they were trying to get back to the car. As they came near the car, M.T. saw that Andrew and Connor had Cameron surrounded. Connor had a knife, and Andrew had the hatchet. Cameron tried to get in his car, but it was locked. Cameron put his knife on the car and said, “I give up.” Andrew laughed and went after Cameron again with the hatchet, but missed. Cameron and Andrew tussled over the hatchet, Cameron got the hatchet, and threw it in Andrew’s direction. He missed. Cameron ran away. Connor caught up to Cameron, pushed him onto the ground, and began to stab him repeatedly. Cameron was unarmed. M.T. got in between them, pushed Connor back, and told him to quit. As he was trying to help Cameron up, Connor reached over Cameron and sliced through M.T.’s right hand. Cameron got up and ran away.
A petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed in San Francisco County, charging M.T. with first degree murder. The juvenile court in San Francisco County commenced a jurisdictional hearing in which M.T. was one of three codefendants, Connor and Mason being the other two. The court found the charge of first degree murder not true, but found true the lesser included offense of second degree murder. In the same hearing, the juvenile court found that codefendant Connor committed second degree murder, but found not true the allegations against codefendant Mason. The court ordered M.T. transferred to Sacramento County for a dispositional hearing. The Sacramento County Juvenile Court denied probation and imposed a sentence of 15 years to life.
DISCUSSION
I
Substantial Evidence of Implied Malice
M.T. argues there was insufficient evidence of implied malice to support a finding of second degree murder. Citing People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1181, he states that implied malice has both a physical and a mental component. “ ‘The physical component is satisfied by the performance of “an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life.” [Citation.] The mental component is the requirement that the defendant “knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and . . . acts with a conscious disregard for life.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
Before we analyze the two components of implied malice with reference to the facts of this case, we set forth the standard of review when the claim is that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment. This standard of review is particularly relevant to part of M.T.’s argument, which is that the evidence against him was inconsistent, vague, and ambiguous, and that no inferences could be made from such evidence.
“ ‘On appeal we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] The standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] “Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ‘ “If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.” ’ [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ [Citations.] The conviction shall stand ‘unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].” ’ ” (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507-508 (Cravens).)
M.T. argues the physical component of implied malice was not met. He claims that when the blows causing death are inflicted with the fist without any aggravating circumstances, the law will not imply malice. (Cravens, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 508.) He argues that because there was no evidence of aggravating circumstances that death or great bodily harm was the natural consequence of his simply hitting Cameron on the back of the head, the physical component was missing. We disagree.
First, there was evidence from which the trial court could have inferred that M.T. was armed, and that he hit Cameron in the back of the head with a hatchet. The evidence supporting this inference was Connor’s statement in the car back to Sacramento that M.T. started the attack when he hit Cameron in the back of the head, and that M.T. had thrown an ax or hatchet at Cameron. Abby told police that M.T. admitted hitting Cameron in the back of the head and knocking him down. Connor told Abby, “someone hit Cameron in the back of the head or there was an ax involved or something.” Finally, the medical examiner testified to one, and only one, injury to the back of Cameron’s head--an ax or hatchet wound. The trial court could have reasonably inferred from this evidence that the hatchet wound to the back of Cameron’s head was inflicted by M.T.
Even assuming M.T. was not armed with a hatchet when he initiated the attack by hitting Cameron in the back of the head, there was sufficient evidence that the natural consequences of M.T.’s conduct were dangerous to life. In determining whether the natural consequences of M.T.’s conduct were dangerous to life, we look to “the manner of the assault and the circumstances under which it was made . . . .” (Cravens, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 508.) Certainly all of the attackers’ conduct taken together was dangerous to Cameron’s life. (See People v. Guillen (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 934, 986.) But, M.T.’s conduct itself was dangerous to life considering the circumstances and manner of assault.
The assailants had taken Cameron to a secluded area with a previously formulated plan to attack him. M.T. initiated the assault by hitting Cameron in the back of the head with enough force to knock Cameron to the ground. Cameron was outnumbered. M.T. not only landed the first blow, but also when Cameron tried to run away from the attacks, M.T. chased him down--twice. While Connor was stabbing Cameron, M.T. was punching Cameron.
M.T. participated in a group beating resulting not only in the stab and hatchet wounds, but in abrasions and blunt force trauma, including 18 discrete blows consistent with kicks or punches. Cameron did not die from some unexpected reaction to a minor injury. He died from loss of blood as a result of the infliction of numerous serious injuries. This evidence is sufficient to show that the natural consequence of M.T.’s conduct was dangerous to Cameron’s life.
To support a finding of the mental component of implied malice, the facts must demonstrate a subjective awareness of the risk of death. (People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 298.) M.T. argues there was no evidence that he was subjectively aware that his conduct endangered Cameron’s life.
The mental component of implied malice requires that the defendant acted deliberately, knowing his conduct endangered the life of another and acted with conscious disregard for life. (Cravens, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 507.) In short, the requirement is that defendant was aware he was engaging in conduct that endangered the life of another. (Ibid.) We have already set forth the evidence regarding the circumstances of Cameron’s death to show that M.T.’s conduct endangered Cameron’s life. As a result of M.T.’s actions in concert with the others, Cameron was killed. His death was not the result of some unforeseen circumstance, but the entirely foreseeable result of a vicious beating and stabbing with fists and weapons. Anyone would have been aware of the risk of death from such actions, and it takes no leap of logic for the trial court to conclude that because anyone would be aware of the risk, M.T. was aware of the risk. (See People v. Moore (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 937, 941.) On the entire record there is sufficient evidence that M.T. was aware he was engaged in conduct that endangered Cameron’s life.
II
Witness Testimony Was Not Inherently Improbable
M.T. argues Cheyenne’s testimony was unreliable hearsay because she had memory problems, was high on marijuana the night of the murder, and could not see the attack because it was dark. He argues Connor’s testimony was unreliable because Connor was drunk.
The trial judge sitting without a jury is the exclusive judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. (In re Gary G. (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 629, 635-636.) While this court may overturn a judgment if it finds the evidence in support “ ‘inherently improbable,’ such a finding is so rare as to be almost nonexistent.” (People v. Ennis (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 721, 728.) The statements must be physically impossible or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions to warrant their rejection. (Ibid.) None of the complained-of testimony falls into such a category.
III
Trial Court Properly Considered Admissions
M.T. argues the court failed to view his admissions with caution. He claims the court relied on his admissions to find him guilty, citing only to the following statement: “And as to [M.T.], I did not find his testimony very credible because most of his testimony was contradicted by his own admissions and adopted admissions.” M.T. argues this statement shows the trial court did not view his admissions with caution as required by law.
Every single case cited by M.T. in support of his contention is a case involving jury instructions. In this case, the court was the trier of fact, and we presume the trial court understood and applied the law correctly. “As an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed, we presume, . . . that the court knows and applies the correct statutory and case law [citation] and is able to distinguish admissible from inadmissible evidence, relevant from irrelevant facts, and to recognize those facts which properly may be considered in the judicial decisionmaking process. (Evid. Code, § 664; Ross v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 899, 913-915; In re Contreras (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 549, 555; People v. Ozene (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 905, 915.)” (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644, overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13.)
Statements made by the trial court as to its reasoning are not reviewable unless they are embodied in the court’s basic ruling and unambiguously disclose an incorrect rather than a correct concept of the law. (People v. Butcher (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 929, 936.) There is no indication from the trial court’s comments about M.T.’s credibility that the court failed to view his admissions with caution. By finding his testimony incredible based on its inconsistency with his admissions and actions, the trial court did not indicate any improper reliance on M.T.’s admissions. We therefore assume the trial court correctly considered the evidence.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional order of July 2, 2014, and the dispositional order of September 2, 2014, are affirmed.



/s/
Blease, Acting P. J.


We concur:



/s/
Hull, J.



/s/
Robie, J.