Filed 2/27/18 In re A.T. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


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

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.




A152000

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J1700354)


15-year-old A.T. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders finding he committed felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c) ) and committing him to a rehabilitation facility. He contends the court’s felony grand theft finding must be reduced to misdemeanor petty theft (§ 490.2) because there was no evidence that the value of the stolen item was greater than $950. The Attorney General concedes—and we conclude—that there was insufficient evidence to support a grand theft finding. We therefore reverse and remand the matter as set forth below.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At about 5:20 p.m. on May 25, 2017, 15-year-old Henry V. was by sitting by himself in his uncle’s parked car when a group of juveniles, including appellant and his half-brother, approached and asked Henry where he was from. When Henry responded that he was from Richmond, appellant and his half-brother said, “Fuck Richmond,” and started to hit Henry in the face. Appellant then took Henry’s sweatshirt from him, without his permission. Henry and his uncle called the police.
The police took Henry and his uncle to a location where appellant and his half-brother had been detained. Appellant was wearing Henry’s sweatshirt. During the booking process, a police officer heard appellant say to his half-brother, “Man, I should never have taken his hoody, I dragged you into this for no reason.”
On May 30, 2017, a wardship petition was filed alleging appellant committed second degree robbery (§§ 211/212.5, subd. (c)). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegation true as to the lesser included offense of felony grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)). At disposition, the court committed appellant to the Orrin Allen Rehabilitation Facility for a nine-month regular program followed by 90 days of conditional release.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the juvenile court’s felony grand theft finding must be reduced to misdemeanor petty theft (§ 490.2) because there was no evidence that the value of Henry’s sweatshirt—the only item he was alleged to have taken—was greater than $950. We agree.
Section 487, subdivision (c), provides that grand theft is the taking of property “from the person of another.” The statute does not specify a minimum value of the property taken. Section 490.2, however, which was added by Proposition 47 in November 2014, provides: “Notwithstanding Section 487 or any other provision of law defining grand theft, obtaining any property by theft where the value of the . . . personal property taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) shall be considered petty theft and shall be punished as a misdemeanor.” We review a juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding for substantial evidence. (In re Andrew I. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 572, 577–578.)
Where the evidence is “insufficient to establish that the minor committed the charged offense” but “adequate to prove a lesser . . . included offense,” a reviewing court may modify the jurisdictional finding to reflect that the minor committed the lesser offense. (In re Arthur N. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 226, 233–234, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 185.) Petty theft is a lesser included offense of grand theft. (§§ 487, 490.2, subd. (a); see People v. Shoaff (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1116.)
Here, no evidence was presented as to the value of the sweatshirt. However, because the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant committed the lesser included offense of petty theft, the order shall be modified to reflect a petty theft finding.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order shall be modified to reflect a finding that appellant committed petty theft (§ 490.2), and the matter shall be remanded to the juvenile court for a new dispositional hearing.


_________________________
McGuiness, Acting P.J. *


We concur:


_________________________
Siggins, J.


_________________________
Jenkins, J.