In re Asia O.
Filed 3/28/07 In re Asia O. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
In re ASIA O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187780 |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ASIA O., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ13282) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert Ambrose, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Tara K. Allen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels and Ryan B. McCarroll, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Asia O. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that she committed a misdemeanor grand theft from a person. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (c)).[1]She was placed home on probation and claims the finding that she committed grand theft is not supported by the evidence. For reasons stated in the opinion, we affirm the order of wardship.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On August 7, 2005, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Jamie Rico and her girlfriends were at the metro station after working at the Del Amo Swap Meet, when appellant walked up to some in the group and asked if they had her shirt. Appellant then said, you guys have my cell phone. Appellant said she was not leaving until she got her cell phone. When Ms. Rico and her friends told appellant they did not have her cell phone, appellant said if they didnt have it, she would take one of [their] cell phones. Ms. Rico looked at appellant and appellant put her hand on the cell phone clipped to Ms. Ricos waistband. Ms. Rico turned around and appellant bit her. Ms. Rico tried to get [appellant] off [her], and thats when [Ms. Rico] dropped [her] cell phone. Ms. Ricos friends could not help her because appellants male companions threatened them. After Ms. Rico got [appellant] off [her, Ms. Rico] walked away to ask for help[.] Appellant and her two companions ran behind Ms. Rico. One of appellants companions took out a pencil and said he would stab the girls. Ms. Rico was scared and walked to call security. The individual who had the pencil had her phone at this point. Appellant left in a Honda Civic and her male companions stayed.
On cross-examination, Ms. Rico acknowledged that at the swap meet she had heard appellant complaining that someone had stolen her mothers cell phone. Ms. Rico also heard appellant say she had left her cell phone at the bus stop. At the metro station, appellant accused Ms. Rico and her friends of stealing her cell phone. She said something to the effect of, Somebody has my phone. I want to see if you guys have it. Ms. Ricos companions allowed appellant to look in their belongings, but Ms. Rico did not.
Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Ronald Smith spoke to appellant on the phone, and she stated she had been at the Del Amo Swap meet with her cousins David S. and James S. She put her cell phone down to try on jewelry; when she looked up, the phone was missing. She believed two girls who were nearby took her phone and asked them if they had it. She asked to search the girls; when one of them refused, a fight erupted. Security guards inside the swap meet broke up the altercation. Appellant walked over to the metro station and saw the same girls and noticed one had a cell phone in her pocket. Appellant believed it to be her mothers cell phone; when she tried to take the phone, another fight ensued. Appellant stated that during the fight, the cell phone fell to the ground and an unknown male picked it up. He handed her the cell phone; appellant then realized it was not her mothers cell phone, but she kept it anyway. Deputy Smith returned the phone to Ms. Rico.
The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that a second degree robbery had been committed but found it to be a misdemeanor and not a felony. When advised that second degree robbery was not a wobbler, the court found that a grand theft person in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (c), a lesser included crime to robbery, had been committed.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the true finding of grand theft person is unsupported by the evidence since there was no felonious intent. The standard of proof in juvenile proceedings involving criminal acts is the same as the standard in adult criminal trials. [Citation.] [Citation.] In considering the sufficiency of the evidence in a juvenile proceeding, the appellate court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgmentbelow to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence--such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence [citation] and we must make all reasonable inferences that support the finding of the juvenile court. [Citation.] [Citations.] (In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1088-1089.) This standard applies to cases based on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] (In re Daniel G. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 824, 830.) Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]. (People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 577.)
Appellant argued that she had a good faith belief that the phone belonged to her mother and she, therefore, had no felonious intent. (See People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 947-948.) The People argued, however, there was also evidence that appellant specifically said she was not leaving until she got a phone, and that if Ms. Rico and her friends did not have appellants phone, appellant would take one that belonged to one of them. Even after appellant realized the phone was not her mothers, she kept it. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, we cannot conclude reversal is required. We cannot say it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there substantial evidence to support the finding.
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] Pursuant to Penal Code section 487, subdivision (c), grand theft is committed [w]hen the property is taken from the person of another.
