In re William H.
Filed 7/24/12 In re William H. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
In re WILLIAM H., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM H., a Minor,
Defendant and Appellant.
D058974
(Super. Ct.
No. J226618)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, Albert T. Harutunian, III and Carolyn Caietti,
Judges. Affirmed in part and reversed in
part with directions.
Following a
court trial the juvenile court found the allegations in a petition filed under
Welfare and Institutions section 602 to be true. Specifically, the court found that William H.
(the Minor) committed battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code,
(§ 242).
In a
separate disposition hearing, which
included disposition of other unrelated offenses, the Minor was placed on
probation on various terms and conditions.
The court set the maximum confinement for all the offenses at five years.
The Minor
appeals contending there is not sufficient evidence to support the true finding
on section 243, that the juvenile court misunderstood the law regarding aiding
and abetting, and that the court erred in failing to make a specific finding
that the violation of section 243 was a felony or a misdemeanor as required by
Cal.4th 1199. We agree the court
failed to specify whether the violation of section 243 was a felony or
misdemeanor, and we will set aside the disposition order with regard to this
petition and remand the case with directions to the juvenile court to make the
sentencing determination as required by In
re Manzy W. We will affirm the
adjudication order.
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
The events
in this case took place at a retail center in Carlsbad
in the evening of May 21, 2010. At that time, the victim, Sean P., and three
of his friends were outside the Ultrastar Movie Theater. The victim and his friends attended Carlsbad
High School together. When they reached the movie theater they were
accosted by the Minor and two of his friends, Alex D. and Cody K. The Minor and his friends attended La Costa
Canyon High School. The Minor and his
friends yelled "Fuck Carlsbad," referred to the victim and his
friends as "faggots," and said they were going to "beat [their]
asses." The Minor and his group
said they wanted to fight in the parking lot.
The victim
and his friends attempted to avoid the Minor and his friends and took the
opposite stairs down to where they were to be picked up. The Minor and his friends apparently changed
their directions and confronted the victim and his friends.
After the
Minor and his friends taunted the victim group, the Minor started the affray by
spitting on one of the victim's friends.
Next Alex D. struck the victim in the face. The victim took off his back pack since he
was going to have to defend himself. As
he turned around he was hit several more times by Alex D. Then, the Minor hit the victim with a
"pretty solid punch" to his face.
About that
time various people had stopped to break up the fight. One of the adults told the Minor and his
friends to "get out of here."
The Minor attempted to run but the victim grabbed his tank top to
restrain him. The Minor pulled away,
tearing the tank top.
About the
same time, Cody K. came from behind the victim and struck him with a very hard
blow to the face. The blow rendered the
victim unconscious for 15 to 30 seconds.
The victim suffered cuts to his mouth that required seven stitches and
suffered from bruising and swelling on his face.
The Minor
and his friends fled from the scene but were apprehended a short distance away
and were identified by the victim in a curbside lineup.
DISCUSSION
I
The Minor
challenges the true finding on count 1, battery with serious bodily injury, on
two related grounds. He contends the
evidence is not sufficient to support the finding he aided and abetted Cory K.,
who delivered the final blow to the victim which produced the injury, and that
the trial court did not understand the law relating to aiding and
abetting. The Minor is wrong on both
theories.
At the
outset we observe that the Minor does not challenge the true finding on count
2, simple battery. His challenge to
count 1 is based largely on his misapprehension of the applicable rule of
aiding and abetting that applies to this case.
The Minor, in overly exhaustive briefing exceeding 100 pages, argues the
natural and probable consequences theory applies to this case. From that faulty premise he argues there is
no evidence he aided in the final blow to the victim and, since that is the
more serious offense, it did not arise from any target crime. The rule that applies to this case is that of
direct aiding and assisting in the crime committed.
At base, as
we will explain, the Minor and his friends collectively assaulted the victim
group with the stated intent of "beating [their] asses." In the affray several battery offenses were
committed by the Minor and by Alex D.
The final blow in the affray was struck by Cory D. as the group was
starting to leave to avoid the police.
The blow struck was simply another battery. The difference is the resulting
in purpose or manner of committing it.
As the trial court observed the Minor very actively participated in
starting the fight, participating directly in hitting the victim and it was
entirely foreseeable that each of his cohorts would strike blows. That one of the blows caused serious injury
was a very likely outcome of the Minor's group assault.
A. Standard of Review
When we
review a contention that a conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence
we apply the very familiar substantial evidence standard of review. Under that standard we review the entire
record, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the decision. We do not make credibility determinations nor
do we attempt to reweigh the evidence.
The issue we must resolve is whether there is sufficient substantial
evidence in the record from which the trial court could have been satisfied,
beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the charged
offense. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.) We apply the same standard of review when the
decision is based on circumstantial evidence.
(People v. Kraft (2000) 23
Cal.4th 978, 1053.)
B. Legal Principles
A person
aids and abets the crimes of another when that person (1) acts with knowledge
of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator, (2) with the intent or purpose of
committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by
act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of the
crime. (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561.) An aider and abettor is responsible for the
crimes of another when he or she acts with knowledge of the perpetrator's
purpose and intentionally aids or encourages the perpetrator. The aider and abettor is liable for the
offense committed as a principal. (
Cal.4th 1111, 1118, 1120.)
C. Analysis
It is
virtually undisputed that the Minor and his cohorts collectively challenged the
victim group to fight. They taunted and
threatened the victim group and wanted to fight with them in the parking
lot. When the victim group attempted to
avoid a fight by leaving in a different direction, the Minor's group headed
them off and continued the confrontation.
It is also clear that all three of the boys in the Minor's group
actively taunted and challenged the others to fight. It was the minor who started the fight by
spitting on one of the boys in the victim group.
Once the
Minor started the fight his colleague, Alex D. immediately punched the
victim. The Minor immediately weighed in
by also punching the victim. The entire
affair lasted only a few moments when nearby adults began to break up the
fight. As the Minor and Alex D. were
starting to run away, their cohort, Cory K., got in the last punch, which
knocked out the victim and caused the
suffered. Cory K. did not use a weapon
and did nothing different than his two partners did, that is he punched the
victim in the face.
The Minor
makes much of his description of the last blow as a "sucker punch"
because it took the victim by surprise.
Based on such characterization, the Minor reasons that the last blow was
therefore separate from the rest of the affray.
He also relies on the aggravated nature of battery under section
243. From that premise, the Minor cites
to federal cases which found homicides committed by members of a group were
outside the scope of the activities the defendants in those cases had
anticipated. (Juan H. v. Allen (9th Cir. 2005) 408 F.3d 1262;
F.3d 1337; overruled in part by Santamaria
v. Horsley (9th Cir. 1998) 138 F.3d 1280.)
The Minor's reliance on those cases is misplaced.
In the
cases he relies on, there was an absence of evidence to show the aider had any
knowledge of the confederate's unlawful purpose. That is not the circumstance in this
case. Here the Minor clearly was aware
that he and his cohorts were going to "beat [their] asses" and he
actively participated in encouraging and assisting his friends. Although he calls Cory K.'s blow a
"sucker punch" it remains simply a punch, the unlawful application of
force to another. It is only the
consequence of the blow that is different and physical injury to someone who
you are beating is clearly foreseeable.
Battery
with serious bodily injury is simply the crime of battery, with a form of
injury resulting from the battery (§ 243, subd. (d)). The crime does not require a specific intent
or purpose. Rather, it is only the
causation of injury that distinguishes the crime of simple battery (§ 242)
from aggravated battery (§ 243, subd. (d)). Thus neither the Minor, nor his accomplice,
Cory K., were required to intend, or have actual knowledge of the potential for
injury. (People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 920.) It is sufficient, as the juvenile court
correctly noted, that the potential for serious bodily injury be
foreseeable. (People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1133;
Cal.App.4th 149, 158.) Clearly the
Minor could reasonably foresee that the result of a group beating could be
serious bodily harm. Indeed the injuries
in this case, brief unconsciousness and significant cuts to the victim's mouth,
are highly likely results of repeated blows to the victim's face.
Finally,
the Minor argues he had retreated from the affray before the last blow was
struck. The trial court could reasonably
find that such was not the case. The
fight was brief and then others were beginning to interfere with the Minor's
group attack on the victim. The court
could reasonably find the last blow, which was struck while the Minor was still
at the scene, was simply a continuation of the brief fight that the Minor and
his friends started. The evidence in
this record plainly supports the true finding on the section 243 offense.
II
The Minor
contends the juvenile court erred at the disposition hearing by failing to
specify whether the section 243 offense was a misdemeanor or a felony. We agree.
Welfare and
Institutions Code section 702 requires the juvenile court to declare whether an
offense committed by a minor is a felony or misdemeanor. The court has required strict compliance with
that section. (In re Manzy W., supra, 14
Cal.4th 1119, 1207.)
The People
recognize the trial court had a duty to state the level of the offense at the
disposition hearing. We are urged,
however, to find there was an implied finding based on a brief remark by the
court in taking an admission by the Minor to a later and separate offense. We decline to imply a finding on this record.
The court's
focus at the disposition hearing was
on the Minor's admission to both felony and misdemeanor drug offenses unrelated
to the battery case before us. We have
reviewed the transcript of the disposition hearing and find there was only a
brief reference to the present case and that related to the possibility of
restitution, to be resolved after the Minor's appeal from the present
case. The comment on which the People
rely has to do with the potential total exposure to custody if the Minor
admitted the new offenses in light of the true finding in the present
case. In our view the comment is at best
ambiguous with regard to this case, and it certainly does not comply with the
requirement of the applicable statute or the specific direction of the court in
In re Manzy W, supra, 14 Cal.4th
1119.
Accordingly we will vacate the dispositions with regard to the offenses
in this case and remand the matter to permit the juvenile court to specify
whether the violation of section 243, subdivision (d) in this case is a felony
or a misdemeanor.
DISPOSITION
The
adjudication and true findings on the petition are affirmed. The disposition in this case is vacated and
the case is remanded to the juvenile court to permit it to comply with Welfare
and Institutions Code section 702.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All
further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
