In re Michael P.
Filed 6/5/08 In re Michael P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MICHAEL P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL P., Defendant and Appellant. | A119823 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J35146) |
I. INTRODUCTION
After jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, the Solano County juvenile court sustained two counts of a four-count petition against appellant. It adjudged appellant a ward of the court, placed him in the custody of his mother albeit with the supervision of the probation department, and ordered him to serve the time he had already served in juvenile hall. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, appellant appeals and asks this court to examine the record and determine if there are any issues presented by the record that are deserving of further briefing and, then, review by this court. We have done so, find none, and hence affirm the juvenile courts order.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2007,[1]the Solano County District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant, then age 17, had committed four offenses during the course of a fight outside a movie theatre on the night of July 13: (1) assault by means likely to produce great bodily harm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1), a felony)[2]; (2) disturbing the peace by fighting ( 415, subd. (1), a misdemeanor); (3) resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer ( 148, subd. (a)(1), a misdemeanor); and (4) battery ( 242, a misdemeanor).
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on October 1. The principal witness for the prosecution was Officer Julie Hayes of the Vacaville Police Department. She testified that, on the night of July 13, she had been dispatched to the parking lot in front of a Vacaville theatre by reports of fighting there. When she arrived about six minutes later, she did not see any fighting at that precise location, but did see a crowd of about 40 people gathered nearby in front of a construction company building. Four or five of those people, according to her testimony, appeared to be fighting.
Officer Hayes switched on the overhead lights on her patrol car, whereupon most of the crowd evaporated quickly. As they did so, Hayes saw appellant standing over the victim (later identified as Alex L.), kicking him in the head. Prior to exiting her car, Hayes saw appellant kick the victim at least five times and doing so with great strength.
Hayes testified that she kept her eyes on appellant continuously as she exited her patrol car, announcing Police, stop. Because of the large number of people leaving in various directions, she testified that she kept her eyes focused solely on appellant. After she told him to stop, he began running away from her, up to a sidewalk, and then past some buildings, perhaps 40 yards in all, she testified. But as he did so, he lost his balance, fell to the ground, climbed to his knees, and attempted to hide under a parked truck. Officer Hayes pointed her taser at appellant and told him to come out from under the truck; he did so, albeit it smiling and laughing.
The victim, Alex L., testified that there were two fights that night, the first in front of the theatre and the second involving him. He testified that he was punched and fell to the ground, where he was hit with closed fists. He did not recall being kicked, and did not see who was hitting him. He suffered several bruises, including one below his left eye and a bump on the right side of his head, and a broken hand.
The District Attorney also called a second Vacaville police officer, Officer Waldrop, who was dispatched to the fight scene a few minutes after Officer Hayes. Waldrop also saw a fight outside the construction company building, and a victim on the ground. He later interviewed appellant, who claimed he was only watching the fight.
Appellants counsel, a deputy public defender, produced two witnesses on behalf of appellant. Both testified that appellant was trying to break up a fight between Alex L. and another juvenile, and that they did not see appellant kick Alex L.
The juvenile court concluded by stating that it found the testimony of Officer Hayes to be credible, and that of the juveniles, including the victim, less so. It also noted that the victim, Alex L., might have difficulties in his recollection due to being hit in the head, and therefore probably doesnt remember getting kicked.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition as to counts 1 and 3, but not as to counts 2 and 4.
At a November 13 dispositional hearing, the court ordered the disposition noted above, including ordering 100 hours of community service and a restitution fine of $100. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal a week later.
III. DISCUSSION
At the critical dispositional hearing, appellant was represented by a deputy public defender. That counsel did an able job of representing appellant, including cross-examining Officers Hayes and Waldrop and the victim, Alex L. In the course of cross-examining Officer Hayes, clearly the key witness for the prosecution, she got Officer Hayes to admit that Officer Waldrop and his companion officer at the scene also detained multiple people . . . as a result of a belief that they were involved in the same incident. She also got the victim, Alex L., to confirm that the fight started on the day in question between him and another youth and that, after he hit the ground, he recalled being just hit twice with a closed fist.
That counsel also did an able job of arguing to the juvenile court that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to justify a positive jurisdictional finding, and urging the court not to sustain any of the counts alleged by the prosecution. She argued, among other things, that the testimony of the two juveniles she had called as witnesses contradicted that of Officer Hayes and that the court should take into consideration the fact that the victim, Alex L., didnt testify to anything involving kicking.
The courts ultimate decision at the jurisdictional hearing was almost 100 percent based on its evaluation of the relative credibility of the witnesses it heard, particularly Officer Hayes on the one hand and the three juveniles (one the victim, the other two appellants witnesses) on the other. Such determinations are, clearly, for the trial court to make and will not be disturbed on appeal. (See, e.g., People v. Misa (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 837, 842.) Again, appellant was ably represented in the juvenile court, and we find nothing in the reporters transcript of the critical jurisdictional hearing suggesting any issues requiring further briefing.
We also find no procedural errors in the record before us and no error in the order issuing from the juvenile court at the November 13 dispositional hearing. (At that hearing, it should be noted, appellants counsel made no objection to either the probation departments report or to the courts order.)
IV. DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed.
_________________________
Haerle, Acting P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Lambden, J.
_________________________
Richman, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]All further dates noted are in 2007.
