In re Ryan P. CA1/2

Filed 8/27/13 In re Ryan P. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 RYAN P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A135485 RYAN P., (Sonoma County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SJ09122675)

Ryan P. appeals from the order continuing his status as a ward of the juvenile court. He contends that one of the two allegations sustained by the court is not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude this contention is without merit. He also contends that four of the terms of his probation are constitutionally defective as overbroad or too vague. We agree in part, and also agree with the Attorney General that the infirmities are correctable. Thus, we will affirm the dispositional order as it includes modifications to be made by the juvenile court. Substantial Evidence This is the latest in a series of wardship proceedings going back to 2008 in a different county. Here, the juvenile court sustained allegations of a subsequent petition in which it was alleged that Ryan had committed robbery, and evaded pursuing police while driving against the flow of traffic. Ryan presents no challenge to the more serious

1

robbery count, but he does claim that the lesser count does not have the support of substantial evidence. Ryan was found to have committed what, if he were an adult, would constitute a violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.4, which in pertinent part provides: “Whenever a person willfully flees or attempts to elude a pursuing peace officer in violation of Section 2800.1, and the person operating the pursued vehicle willfully drives that vehicle on a highway in a direction opposite to that in which the traffic lawfully moves upon that highway, the person upon conviction is punishable by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year in a county jail or by imprisonment in the state prison . . . .” The referenced section 2800.1 makes it a misdemeanor for any driver to “willfully flee[ ] or otherwise attempt[ ] to elude a pursuing peace officer’s motor vehicle” with an “intent to evade.” (Veh. Code, §2800.1, subd. (a).) Ryan insists there is no substantial evidence that it was he who was “operating the pursued vehicle . . . in a direction opposite to that in which the traffic lawfully moves.” Our review of the juvenile court’s decision is governed by the same standards applicable to adult convictions. (In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540.) And those standards maximize deference to the trier of fact, which in this case was a very experienced juvenile court commissioner. “To assess the evidence’s sufficiency, we review the whole record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime . . . beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] . . . In applying the test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the [trier of fact] could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] ‘Conflicts and even testimony [that] is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge . . . to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. . . .’ [Citation.] A reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support” the [trier of fact’s decision.] [Citation.] [¶] The same standard governs in cases where the