In re T.M. CA5

Filed 1/23/14 In re T.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re T.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F066406

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JL003191)

v. OPINION T.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. David W. Moranda, Judge. Candice L. Christensen, 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, Carlos A. Martinez and Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Gomes, J.

-ooOoo- Defendant T.M. was charged with felony disturbing the peace (Pen. Code,1 § 415, subd. (3); count 1) and a probation violation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777; count 2) in a subsequent petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.2 Count 1 alleged that defendant acted for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (d). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition to be true. On December 13, 2012, the court continued defendant as a ward and placed her on probation. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) her statements to a high school vice principal, made in the presence of a police officer, were admitted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444 (Miranda); (2) her use of the epithet “scrap bitches” was protected speech and did not violate section 415; and (3) insufficient evidence supports the gang enhancement because there is no evidence she acted with the required specific intent. We affirm. FACTS On October 27, 2012, around 3:00 p.m., defendant was a passenger on a school bus driving in the City of Atwater, which is predominately Sureño gang territory. As the bus approached a bus stop, the bus driver observed some students or young people walking on the sidewalk. A student on the bus identified them to the bus driver as the kids who had beat up another student on the bus. When the bus stopped, defendant and another female student got up from their seats, lowered their windows, and started yelling and being confrontational towards the group of young people on the sidewalk. The group came towards the bus and began