In re M.P. CA1/4

Filed 5/2/14 In re M.P. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A137855 M.P., (Alameda County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SJ0801010809)

The juvenile court found true in a delinquency proceeding (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) that appellant M.P. committed two first degree burglaries (Pen. Code, §§ 459; 460, subd (a)).1 Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the court’s findings. We affirm, but we remand the matter to the juvenile court to correct an error in the disposition order. I. FACTS Miao Miao Wang rented a room in a home located at 351 Faxon Avenue in San Francisco. On November 9, 2012, she left her room sometime after 8:00 a.m. to go shopping. She locked the door to the room when she left. She returned around noon to

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

find the house was a “big mess” and that the door to her room was “broken.” Her laptop computer was missing along with its case and a black suitcase. Bai Chong Liao owned and also lived in the home at 351 Faxon. He too was out of the house on the morning of November 9. He returned home when Wang called him to report the break-in. Liao found the house in disarray and that two doors were broken. He was able to tell that a gun was missing. He later discovered other items were missing—a tape recorder, a home safe, a passport, and a backpack. The intruders had also removed the quarters from a piggy bank and placed them in a plastic bag, but they had left the bag behind. A neighbor had a video surveillance system that captured a view of the sidewalk in front of 351 Faxon. The system had three different cameras focused on three different angles. The system recorded continuously and stored 30 days of footage on a hard drive. The neighbor showed the video captured the morning of November 9 to the police. The police downloaded the portion of the video they believed was relevant to their investigation. That portion showed a car arriving and parking at the curb near 351 Faxon at approximately 8:30 am.2 A man emerges from the car and proceeds toward the front of 351 Faxon. There are two, side-by-side walkways (appellant characterizes them as “inset areas”) at the front of 351 Faxon: one goes toward a door on the first (garage) floor, and the second goes toward stairs leading to the second floor. The man enters the inset areas. The man is off-screen for approximately two minutes before he returns to the car. A different man gets out of the car and goes into the inset areas. He is off-screen for a short time. The first man and a third man get out of the car. The man who was off- screen rejoins them and they mill about on the sidewalk for a few minutes. One man disappears again toward the front of the buildings. Meanwhile a passing vehicle stops and the remaining two men go out into the street and approach the vehicle. After a brief