In re Bobby M.

Filed 3/10/06 In re Bobby M. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Douglas N. Gericke, Judge. Affirmed.

Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Foster, James D. Dutton, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1. Introduction

In a supplemental juvenile delinquency petition, Bobby M. (minor) was charged with 16 counts of vehicle burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.)^[1][1] The court found 12 of the allegations true (counts 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14) and ordered minor to remain a ward of the court and placed him at juvenile hall in the custody of his probation officer pending placement in a suitable foster care facility. On appeal, minor challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. Because substantial evidence supported the court's findings, we affirm the court's order.

2. Factual and Procedural History

During the evening hours of November 9, 2004, and the early morning hours of November 10, 2004, 12 burglaries occurred in or around the vicinity of Tennessee and Pine in Redlands. All 12 owners left their cars locked. After the burglaries, the owners noticed that their cars had been broken into. In most cases, the owners also noticed that something was missing, such as a stereo.

At approximately 5:00 a.m. on November 10, 2004, Redlands Police Officer Jesse Marquez observed a vehicle burglary in progress on Pine Avenue near Tennessee. As he approached the vehicle, he saw two males exit the driver's side door and a third male coming around the back of the truck. All three were dressed in dark clothes with a hood. When they noticed Marquez's patrol unit, they began running toward an apartment complex.

After arriving at the scene and assisting with the perimeter search, Officer David Clark parked his car on Brookside near an embankment located between Pine and Brookside. While sitting in his patrol unit, Clark noticed two figures shuffling along the embankment. They were wearing dark clothes and hooded jackets. Clark approached and ordered them to freeze. One complied and the other fled. Minor was the one who complied. Clark handcuffed minor, who was wearing gloves, and performed a patdown search, finding nothing. Another officer apprehended the suspect who fled.

Clark later searched the area where he had apprehended minor and found a Phillips screwdriver. He also walked along the path that the suspects had taken and found a remote control for a car stereo.

Officer Dean Johnston also arrived at the scene to assist in the perimeter search. During his search, Johnston found the third suspect hiding in a bush behind an apartment on Pine Avenue. The suspect was wearing dark clothing and black gloves. Before finding the suspect, Johnston noticed a trail of property, including two small remote controls and a large screwdriver, leading to the bush. Within a few feet from the bush, Johnston also found several car stereos, a portable DVD player, a portable CD player, a tool box, a nylon bag, and stereo headphones.

3. Discussion

Minor claims that insufficient evidence supported the court's findings on the allegations in counts 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14. Minor also claims the court erred in denying the request made at the end of the prosecution's case to dismiss these counts on grounds of insufficiency of the evidence.

We review both claims under the substantial evidence test. (In re Nathaniel C. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 990, 996; In re Andre G. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 62, 65.) In applying the substantial evidence test, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to affirming the order, presume every fact reasonably deduced from the evidence, and determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence (i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value), such that a reasonable trier of fact could make the same findings beyond a reasonable doubt. (Nathaniel C., supra, at p. 996; see also People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.) The same standard applies where the finding was based primarily on circumstantial evidence. (In re Andre R. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 336, 343; see also People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)

The court found that minor committed 12 vehicle burglaries. A vehicle burglary occurs when a person enters a locked vehicle with the intent to steal. (§ 459; see also In re James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 869.)

As argued by the People, substantial evidence supported the court's finding on either the theory that minor entered the vehicles himself or that he aided and abetted the others in the burglaries. To be liable as an aider or abettor, the person must have both knowledge of the perpetrator's purpose and the intent to facilitate the commission of the offense, and by his conduct aid in its commission. (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561.) â€