Filed 6/23/17 In re D.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin)
----



In re D.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C081417


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. Nos. JJCJVDE20150001259, 71025)




The juvenile court found true allegations that minor D.G. engaged in first degree burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, vandalism, and possession of vandalism tools. The juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation.
Minor now contends there is insufficient evidence to support the true findings on the burglary and conspiracy allegations. We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship petition alleged minor committed misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a) -- count 1), misdemeanor possession of vandalism tools (§ 594.2, subd. (a) -- count 2), felony first degree burglary (§ 459 -- count 3), and felony conspiracy to commit burglary (§ 182, subd. (a)(1) -- count 4). At a contested jurisdiction hearing, counts 1 and 2 were found true and minor was declared a ward of the court. Counts 3 and 4 were dismissed without prejudice.
The People filed another wardship petition alleging the burglary and conspiracy counts that had previously been dismissed without prejudice. The juvenile court sustained the allegations at a contested hearing. At a combined disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued minor as a ward of the court and placed him on probation.
Because minor’s contentions on appeal address only the allegations in the second petition, we limit our recitation to the relevant facts.
In February 2015 witnesses saw three teenagers jumping over the fences of two homes in Stockton. The boys fled when a witness asked what they were doing. One of the witnesses followed the boys and reported to a nearby deputy sheriff.
San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Strickland and his partner went to one of the homes and found no evidence of a break in. They followed a trail of footprints to the back of the other home and found the back door pried open. Inside they found that an interior door had been kicked in. No one was in the home at the time and nothing appeared to be disturbed within, but flowerpots and other items on the front porch had been moved. Deputy Strickland thought this was consistent with someone looking for a key under a flower pot. After talking to a school resource officer, Deputy Strickland determined minor was a primary suspect.
Deputy Strickland obtained a Miranda waiver from minor and interviewed him. Minor initially denied involvement in a burglary or theft but subsequently admitted that he and his friends forcibly entered the home. They sat inside for about an hour and a half, during which time minor’s friends ate soup from inside the home. Minor told Deputy Strickland he did not want to burglarize the home, he just wanted to hang out there.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends there is insufficient evidence to support the true findings on the burglary and conspiracy allegations. Specifically, he argues there is insufficient evidence of a burglary because the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intent at the time of entry, and there is insufficient evidence of conspiracy because there was no agreement and no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
In determining whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we apply the substantial evidence standard. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 414.) We ask whether, “ ‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260, 272, italics omitted.) We do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) “Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction. [Citation.]” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) “ ‘ “ ‘If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Casares (2016) 62 Cal.4th 808, 823-824.) Thus, reversal is not warranted unless there is no hypothesis on which there exists substantial evidence to support the conviction. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
A
We begin with minor’s claim that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intent for burglary at the time of entry. Burglary requires entry into “any house . . . with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony . . . .” (§ 459.) Intent is “ ‘rarely susceptible of direct proof and must usually be inferred from all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Falck (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 287, 299.)
Minor compares this case to In re Leanna W. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 735 (Leanna W.), in which a minor ran away from her juvenile placement, entered her grandmother’s home without permission by obtaining a key from a neighbor while the grandmother was away, and held a party. (Id. at pp. 737, 739.) When the grandmother returned home, she found items missing from her home. (Id. at p. 740.) The juvenile court in that case sustained burglary and vandalism allegations (Id. at p. 738), but the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding there was insufficient evidence because the juvenile court could not tell if the minor took or intended to take any items or used or intended to use any utilities. (Id. at pp. 741-742.) Although the incidental use of utilities can supply the larcenous intent for burglary, in other cases the intent to use the home’s utilities had been proven with evidence other than the entry itself. (Ibid.)
Here, minor claims he is like the minor in Leanna W., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th 735, arguing he did not enter with the intent to use utilities or to consume food or drink in the home. He notes the only theft involved his friends eating soup. But Leanna W., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th 735 is inapposite because in that case there were a large number of people at the party and the juvenile court found it did not know what the minor did while she was in the grandmother’s home. Here, however, minor and his friends broke into the home and minor hung out inside the house with his two friends while they ate soup from the home. The juvenile court could reasonably infer minor’s intent to commit larceny or some other felony based on the forcible entry, minor’s knowledge of and close proximity to the theft, his subsequent flight from the witness, and his lies to Deputy Strickland. (See, e.g., People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 41-42; People v. Smith (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 698, 704; People v. Martin (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 334, 339; People v. Michaels (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 194, 199; People v. Stewart (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 687, 690-691; see generally 2 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against Property, §§ 155-156, pp. 202-205.) Substantial evidence supports the true finding on the burglary allegation.
B
Minor also claims there is insufficient evidence of conspiracy because there was no agreement and no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
A conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit any crime. (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 184.) “A conviction of conspiracy requires proof that the defendant and another person had the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense, as well as the specific intent to commit the elements of that offense, together with proof of the commission of an overt act ‘by one or more of the parties to such agreement’ in furtherance of the conspiracy. [Citations.]” (People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403, 416.) It is not necessary to establish “that the parties met and actually agreed to undertake the unlawful act or that they had previously arranged a detailed plan. The evidence is sufficient if it supports an inference that the parties positively or tacitly came to a mutual understanding to commit a crime. Therefore, conspiracy may be proved through circumstantial evidence inferred from the conduct, relationship, interests, and activities of the alleged conspirators before and during the alleged conspiracy.” (People v. Prevost (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1382, 1399.)
As we have explained, substantial evidence supports the true finding on the burglary allegation. Although minor claimed his friends were solely responsible for the forced entry and theft, the juvenile court did not have to credit minor’s version. The evidence shows minor’s unlawful entry into the home was an overt act in furtherance of the tacit agreement with his friends, who with minor’s knowledge and apparent acquiescence consumed the homeowner’s soup. Substantial evidence supports the true finding on this allegation.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/S/
MAURO, Acting P. J.



We concur:



/S/
HOCH, J.



/S/
RENNER, J.