In re Trevon M.
Filed 12/4/13 In re Trevon M. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
FIFTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re TREVON M., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
TREVON M.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F066539
(Super.
Ct. No. JL003509)
THE COURT
name="_ftnref1" title="">*
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County. David W.
Moranda, Judge.
Arthur L.
Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael
P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and
Sarah J. Jacobs, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
On appeal
following adjudication of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision
(a) petition, Trevon M. contends there is insufficient
juvenile court’s finding that he committed residential burglary. We will affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In a
petition filed November 28, 2012,
the Merced County District Attorney alleged Trevon committed the following
violations: count 1—first degree
burglary (Pen. Code,
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1] § 459); count 2—receiving stolen property
(§ 496, subd. (a)); and count 3—violating a prior court order, juvenile
probation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777, subd. (a)).
Following
contested proceedings held December 20 and 21, 2012, the juvenile court
found counts 1, 2, and 3 as alleged in the petition to be true beyond a
reasonable doubt.
At
disposition on January 8, 2013,
the court ordered, inter alia, that Trevon be committed to Bear
Creek Academy’s
long-term program for a period not to exceed one year. This appeal followed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 26, 2012, Juan Penate
left his home in Merced to run
errands. He ensured all doors and
windows were closed and locked before he left that morning as he had been the
victim of a burglary just a month or so prior.
Forty-five minutes to an hour later, he returned. Penate entered through the front door and
then heard a “noise and stumbling.†As
he was walking toward the kitchen, two or three individuals jumped out and
Penate was pushed down. As he got up, Penate
saw the individuals running out of the house and into his backyard. Penate testified that he believed Trevon was
the individual who pushed him down because “[h]e was the last one I saw
running,†and Penate could not identify the others because all he “saw was their
backs.†He was not certain however.
Penate
called 911 as he followed the individuals outside. His dogs were barking in the backyard and he
looked over the fence into the yard of the home next door. Penate made eye contact with Trevon as Trevon
was about to enter a side garage door of the vacant home next door. Penate yelled at him. Trevon disappeared through the door into the
garage. Penate expected the individuals
to exit the house next door through the front, however, he heard noises that
led him to believe they were jumping the fence behind the home. The police arrived in response to his 911
call about three to four minutes later.
Penate’s
home had been ransacked. He identified a
number of items missing from the home, including cell phones, jewelry, and a
PlayStation 2. He also noted other
property had been moved from one location to another within the home. A bathroom window was open and its screen
removed.
Detective
Owen Johnson of the Merced Police Department was monitoring radio traffic on
November 26, 2012, and heard the call about a possible residential
burglary in progress with a subject running from the scene. Johnson responded to the address and received
a description of the suspect from Officer Peter Lee. That description matched the description of a
young man Johnson had previously arrested for residential burglary, Trevon M.,
who lived nearby.
After
confirming Trevon was still on probation, Johnson and his partner Detective
Rodriguez responded to the minor’s residence.
As they approached the front door, Johnson noted it was standing open
about two to three inches. Johnson
knocked and announced their presence by shouting, “Merced Police Department, hello,
hello, Merced Police Department†and “Trevon, are you in there, Trevon?†After waiting a few moments and receiving no
response, Johnson pushed the door open and he and Rodriguez entered the home.
After
clearing the kitchen area past the living room, the detectives proceeded down a
hallway, passing a few bedrooms. In the
third bedroom, Johnson encountered Trevon’s stepfather, sound asleep. After Mr. M. awoke and Johnson
identified himself and explained they were looking for Trevon, the group headed
back toward the front of the home. In a
front bedroom, Johnson found Trevon hiding in a closet. He was crouched down into a ball; when the
closet door was opened, Trevon lunged out and ran to the other side of the
room. Eventually he was detained.
In the same
room where Trevon was hiding, various belongings of Penate were found. They included cell phones, rings, coins, and
game controllers. Trevon was then
arrested.
DISCUSSION
Trevon
argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain the juvenile court’s true
finding that he committed the crime of residential burglary because there was
no evidence he had been in the victim’s home.
The victim did not observe Trevon to be one of the individuals he
encountered when he returned home.
Rather, the victim only saw him at the property located next door. As a result, Trevon maintains the juvenile
court’s finding is insufficient to establish that he entered the residence with
the intent to commit a theft or felony therein.
The Applicable Legal Standards
The crime
of burglary is defined, in pertinent part, as follows: “Every person who enters any house … with
intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.†(§ 459.) The crime of burglary and the identification
of the perpetrator are often established entirely by circumstantial evidence. (People
v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1329; see also People v. Hinson (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 573, 577-579 [substantial
evidence defendant committed a burglary where witness identified him as the man
she had seen crouching in front of broken store window and then fleeing from
scene after he noticed her].)
When an
appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a juvenile court
judgment sustaining the allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section
602 petition, we must apply the same standard of review applicable to any claim
by a criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support
a judgment of conviction on appeal.
“Under this standard, the critical inquiry is ‘whether, after
reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] An appellate court ‘must review the whole
record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether
it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible,
and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.]
[¶] In reviewing the evidence adduced at trial, our perspective
must favor the judgment. [Citations.] ‘… The test on appeal is whether there is
substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact; it is not
whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]’†(In re
Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371-1372.)
“‘It is
axiomatic that an appellate court defers to the trier of fact on such
determinations, and has no power to judge the effect or value of, or to weigh
the evidence; to consider the credibility of witnesses; or to resolve conflicts
in, or make inferences or deductions from the evidence. We review a cold record and, unlike a trial
court, have no opportunity to observe the appearance and demeanor of the
witnesses. [Citation.] “Issues of fact and credibility are questions
for the trial court.†[Citations.] It is not an appellate court’s function, in
short, to redetermine the facts. [Citation.] Under the substantial evidence rule, we ‘must
accept the evidence most favorable to the order as true and discard the unfavorable
evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact.’ [Citation.]†(In re
S.A. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1140.)
“‘“[T]he
standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on
circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] ‘Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit
a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two
interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence
[citations], it is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of
the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “‘If the circumstances reasonably justify the
trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the
circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does
not warrant a reversal of the judgment.’â€
[Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘“Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient
to connect a defendant with the crime and to prove his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.â€â€™â€ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]†(People
v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 960-961.)
The Juvenile Court’s Ruling
After
considering the arguments of counsel, the juvenile court found as follows:
“[The Court:] … I do find that as to count 1 the burglary in
the first degree, … I do find that the minor is guilty of that, find that
offense is true, find it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The
close proximity of the items, the time which I think was only five minutes is
what Detective Johnson said, the identification by the victim who I thought was
an excellent witness, was very good, so I do find count 1 is true.â€
Later, the court stated, “Truly beyond all doubt I find that
he committed the burglary.â€
Our Analysis
Juan Penate’s
testimony regarding the individuals he encountered in his home amounts to
circumstantial evidence that Trevon was one of those individuals.
While it is
true Penate was not certain Trevon was the individual who knocked him down
inside the house before fleeing, Penate testified on direct examination that he
believed Trevon to be one of those individuals because “[h]e was the last one
that [Penate] saw running†away. Penate
got up to follow the individuals outside, calling the police as he did so. Once in his backyard, where his dogs were
barking, Penate looked over the fence separating his home from the vacant home
next door. It was then that he made eye
contact with Trevon who was about to enter a side door of that home’s garage. On cross-examination, Penate admitted he did
not see Trevon leave his home and travel to the house next door, but he did
testify this series of events happened within “[f]ive to six seconds†and “[i]t
was all very fast.†The police arrived a
few moments later.
Although
the evidence that Trevon was inside Penate’s residence is circumstantial
because Penate was not certain of his identification until he made eye contact
with him, only a very brief period of time was at issue. In other words, from the time Penate was
surprised by individuals confronting him inside his home and knocking him down,
to the time he looked over the fence separating his home from the home next
door and making eye contact with Trevon, Penate estimated five to six seconds
had elapsed. Therefore, even if Penate’s
testimony on direct examination cannot be said to place Trevon inside his home,
his testimony on both direct and cross-examination places Trevon in the
neighboring yard mere seconds later.
Trevon is then seen entering the garage of that home, and Penate heard
individuals “jumping the fence†behind the home. When a person is shown to be in possession of
recently stolen property, only slight evidence of corroboration is sufficient
to support the conviction for burglary.
(See People v. Gamble (1994)
22 Cal.App.4th 446, 453.) It is
therefore reasonable to infer Trevon was among the individuals who had been
inside the Penate residence, and he was following the other individuals as they
made their escape.
The trial court
found the victim’s testimony to be credible and we defer to those findings. (In re
S.A., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1140.) Moreover, while the evidence
concerning Trevon’s presence inside the victim’s home was circumstantial, it
was of such value that it reasonably justified the juvenile court’s findings. (People
v. Jones, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p.
961.) Therefore, considering all of the
evidence, and viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we
find a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime of residential burglary were met. (
juvenile court’s true finding as to the crime of burglary.
DISPOSITION
The judgment
is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">*Before
Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1]All
further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
