In re Dwight H.
Filed 9/7/11 In re Dwight H. CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
| In re DWIGHT H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DWIGHT H., Defendant and Appellant. | A130911 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ1015252) |
Dwight H. appeals from his convictions of battery (Pen. Code, § 242) and vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)). Dwight asserts in his notice of appeal that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict under Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1. However, his appointed counsel on appeal raises no issues and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2010, the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that Dwight committed battery (Pen. Code, § 242; count 1) and vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A); count 2). After a contested jurisdictional hearing the juvenile court found Dwight committed both offenses. The court declared Dwight a ward of the court and placed him on probation in his mother’s custody.
At the jurisdictional hearing, the court heard from the following witnesses: the victim, two character witnesses for the defendant, and the officer who spoke with the victim and arrested Dwight.
On May 15, 2010, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Sam Kann drove his car to the intersection of 66th Avenue and San Leandro Boulevard in Oakland. Two men stood in front of Kann’s car, making it impossible for him to drive through the intersection. After waiting two green light cycles, Kann honked to get the two men to move. One of the men ran to Kann’s driver’s door, opened the door, and punched him on the left side of his jaw. The man then jumped onto the hood of Kann’s car and smashed the windshield with his foot. After kicking the windshield, the man jumped off the hood and ran away. Kann followed the man and watched him run into a nearby apartment complex. When police officers arrived, Kann identified Dwight as the man who punched him and smashed his windshield.
During the jurisdictional hearing, Kann had difficulty identifying Dwight as the person who punched him and damaged his car. He had trouble describing what Dwight was wearing and seemed generally confused by the prosecution’s questions. However, he ultimately identified Dwight as his attacker. Defense counsel argued that given Kann’s confusion, the prosecution could not meet its burden of proving that Dwight committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, and requested a directed verdict. The trial judge determined that there was sufficient evidence to continue and denied the motion for a directed verdict.
Dwight filed a timely notice of appeal. In a Wende appeal, the defendant has the right to file supplemental contentions. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120.) Dwight’s counsel on appeal informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief; however, he failed to do so.
DISCUSSION
Dwight asserts that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. In determining a motion for directed verdict, “the trial court has no power to weigh the evidence, and may not consider the credibility of witnesses. It may not grant a directed verdict where there is any substantial conflict in the evidence.” (Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72 Cal. App.4th 621, 629 (Howard).) A directed verdict may only be granted when “giving the evidence of the party against whom the motion is directed all value to which it is legally entitled, and indulging every legitimate inference from such evidence in favor of that party, the court nonetheless determines there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the claim or defense of the party opposing the motion . . . .” (Id. at pp. 629-630.) Thus, if the party resisting a motion for directed verdict produces sufficient evidence in his favor, the motion must be denied. (Ibid.)
A directed verdict is subject to de novo appellate review. (Baker v. American Horticulture Supply, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1072.) The reviewing court looks to see whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, in support of the judgment. (Howard, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at pp. 630-631.) Evidence is substantial if it is “reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (United Professional Planning Inc. v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 377, 393.) If this “substantial” evidence is present, “no matter how slight it may appear in comparison with the contradictory evidence, the judgment must be upheld.” (Howard, at p. 631). Even if the judgment of the trial court is against the weight of the evidence, an appellate court must uphold the judgment as long as it is supported by evidence which is “substantial.” (Ibid.)
In order to prove that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict, Dwight would have to show that there was no substantial evidence to support that judgment. In this case, there was substantial evidence in the record showing that Dwight was the man who punched Kann and smashed his windshield. First, despite his difficulties, Kann identified Dwight as his attacker at the jurisdictional hearing. Also, Kann testified that he observed Dwight for two green light cycles before honking, that Dwight stood directly next to him before punching him, and that he followed Dwight to an apartment complex, watched him run inside, and identified him to the police as the man who attacked him. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s denial of the motion for a directed verdict.
DISPOSITION
Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues that require further briefing. Dwight’s claim that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict fails because there is substantial evidence in the record to support that decision. The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Lambden, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Richman, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
