In re S.S. CA3
Filed 10/29/13 In re S.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
In re S.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, C073070
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JV134330)
v.
S.S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
After a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found that minor S.S. committed assault with a deadly weapon and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subds. (a)(1), (a)(4).)1 The juvenile court
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
sustained the wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), denied the minor‟s request to reduce the section 245 felony charges to misdemeanors (§ 17, subd. (b)), stayed punishment on one count (§ 654), committed the minor to six days in juvenile hall with six days of credit, and set a maximum term of four years. The minor now contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in refusing to reduce the felony offenses to misdemeanors. We conclude, however, that there was no abuse of discretion. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The Jurisdiction Hearing The minor attended Foothill High School and so did 15-year-old I.L. and 16-year- old B.H. In September 2012, I.L., B.H. and three others wanted to eat lunch together in a particular classroom, but the door was locked. The minor and his 15-year-old stepsister, D.V., were inside the classroom and did not let I.L. and his friends inside. D.V. testified that when I.L. knocked on the door, she got up to let him in, but the teacher told her to sit down. I.L. and the other boys entered the classroom through another door. B.H. asked the minor why he was “such a jerk.” B.H. then turned D.V.‟s computer off, and D.V. threw a sandwich at B.H. I.L. and his friends exchanged “swear words” with the minor and D.V. D.V. and the minor soon left the classroom. I.L. and B.H. followed them out. B.H. and I.L. approached the minor and D.V., calling D.V. a “slut and bitch” while challenging the minor to a fight. B.H. told D.V. to watch her back, and told the minor that “he was going to beat him up with his group.” The minor told B.H. he would not fight him. B.H. followed the minor to his next class, where he sat down and continued to threaten the minor until the teacher kicked him out. B.H. and I.L.‟s group also threatened the minor the following school day, asking the minor to fight “right here, right now.” When I.L. would see the minor in school hallways, his friends would exchange threats to fight with the minor. They wanted a “fair” fight with him.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)