In re M.G. CA2/6

Filed 11/21/13 In re M.G. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re M.G., a Person Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B245218 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 1395362) (Santa Barbara County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

M.G. appeals a juvenile court judgment which sustained the allegations of an amended juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) that he possessed a controlled substance--Vicodin. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) We conclude, among other things, that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings and judgment. We affirm. FACTS On April 11, 2012, M.G.'s father became concerned because M.G. had been "out all night" and did not come home. He suspected M.G. had been using drugs. After M.G. came home, his father confronted him and asked "if he had ingested a drug." M.G. handed him a pill and said that "he would take them to feel more tranquil." The pill was Vicodin, a controlled substance.

Police Officer Nathan Totorica came to the home to investigate a report that M.G. was a missing person. He spoke to M.G.'s mother. She told him she was concerned about M.G.'s "drug use" and she handed him the Vicodin pill. At trial, Totorica testified that he asked M.G. where "he got the pill." M.G. responded he obtained it from a friend. He would not name that person. M.G. told Totorica that he planned to take the pill "at a later time." He said he had "smoked methamphetamine on several occasions." Totorica asked M.G. "if he knew it was wrong to possess the pill." M.G. said, "Yes." M.G. testified he told Totorica that a friend gave him the pill. He told that false story because Totorica did not believe him when he said he found the pill under a bridge--a place "where everybody smokes marijuana and everything." He did not tell Totorica that he "had smoked meth." He told him he smoked marijuana. M.G. testified he "could not wait to show" the pill to his father because he "didn't know what kind of pill" it was. The trial court sustained the petition. It found, among other things, that: 1) M.G. said "he knew it was wrong to possess the pill," 2) he knew the narcotic "character" of the pill because he said "a friend gave it to him," and 3) he knew that the effect of the drug would make him tranquil. DISCUSSION Substantial Evidence M.G. contends there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that he knowingly possessed a controlled substance.1 We disagree. "The role of an appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is limited." (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1138.) We review the record in the light "most favorable to the judgment." (Ibid.) We do not weigh the evidence or decide the credibility of the witnesses. (People v. Belcher (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 404, 407.)