In re Mark G.








Filed 11/15/10 In re Mark G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Mark G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B220239 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ45699)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mark G., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shep Zebberman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., and Eric E. Reynolds, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
The juvenile court sustained a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for felony vandalism. On appeal, the minor, Mark G., contends, first, that there was insufficient evidence to establish vandalism and, second, that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the damage exceeded $400, which rendered the crime a felony. We find that there was sufficient evidence to establish felony vandalism and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Factual background.
George Yu was the Executive Director of the Chinatown Business Improvement District. Part of his responsibilities as executive director was to document tagging in the area and to clean it up. Either late on April 20, 2009 or in the early morning of April 21, Yu was alerted to the existence of graffiti on an overpass in Chinatown. At about noon on April 21, Yu took photographs of the overpass. He had a contractor paint over the graffiti that same day. It cost over $1,000 to clean the overpass, but it was substantially more than $400. To verify that the graffiti had been cleaned up, Yu went back to the overpass that same day in the early evening and confirmed that the contractor had painted over the graffiti. The overpass remained graffiti-free for the next two weeks.
Melvin McKenzie used that same overpass in Chinatown every day. The same day that Yu had the overpass cleaned of graffiti, April 21, 2009, McKenzie crossed the overpass at about 6:00 p.m. McKenzie saw Mark G. sitting. McKenzie and Mark G. were neighbors. About six feet from Mark G. was another man, who was spray painting the overpass. McKenzie yelled, â€