In re G.P. CA4/3
Filed 11/27/13 In re G.P. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re G.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, G047609 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DL040846) v. OPINION G.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed. Kristin A. Erickson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina,
Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia and Marissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
The court found that minor G.P. committed felony vandalism. (Pen. Code, 1 § 594, subd. (a).) The court declared him a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and ordered him to be committed to juvenile hall for 60 days, but stayed the commitment pending his successful completion of probation. On appeal minor contends that the court applied the wrong legal standard in determining he committed felony vandalism and that insufficient evidence showed he caused damage in excess of $400. We affirm.
FACTS
On June 21, 2012, minor used a baseball bat to break the window and door of his bedroom in the apartment rented by his mother (Regina Ramirez) and her husband (Ramon Davalos). Ramirez paid for the parts need to replace the window and door, and Davalos installed them. Their receipts showed they paid at least $166.55 for parts. These receipts did not include any charges for paint, a door handle, door hinges, a door jam, or labor. Davalos spent around 20 minutes installing the door and 20 minutes installing the window. Ramirez spent around 30 minutes cleaning up the broken glass. Ramirez believed the new door and window were not inferior to the original door and window.
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)