In re Emily S. CA2/3
Filed 6/27/14 In re Emily S. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
In re EMILY S., a Person Coming Under B253262 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MJ22210)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EMILY S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Denise McLaughlin-Bennett, Judge. Affirmed.
Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Emily S., appeals from the order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered as a result of the juvenile court’s finding she committed grand theft of personal property, a felony, in violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a). The court placed Emily S. at home on probation. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Facts. a. The prosecution’s case. During December 2012 and January 2013, Barbara . lived on Minstrel Drive in the City of Palmdale. Barbara G. lived at the house with her foster children, 17-year-old Emily S. and Emily S.’s younger brother, Michael S. Just before Christmas 2012, Barbara G. noticed a pair of her earrings were missing. Then, just after Christmas, but before the New Year holiday, Barbara G. realized her father’s watch was missing. The earrings, which had been a gift from her father, were worth between $900 and $1,000. The watch, which Barbara G. was saving for her brother, had been appraised at between $950 and $1,000. Barbara G. had last seen her earrings sitting on the kitchen counter, next to the coffee pot. She had last seen the watch in the drawer in her nightstand in her bedroom. Anyone who lived at the home had access to the earrings and watch. Barbara G. had noticed her earrings were missing after several of Emily S.’s friends had been at the house visiting. Although they all had been in the kitchen at one time or another, Barbara G. had not actually seen anyone take the earrings. Barbara G. did remember that a woman named Latanya, who was Emily S.’s father’s girlfriend, had stayed at the house around the holidays, but Barbara G. believed Latanya had been there after Barbara G. had noticed the watch and earrings were missing. After the New Year, Emily S. was staying with her grandfather for a couple of days. Emily S. was supposed to be back at Barbara G.’s house by a particular time and, when she was late, Barbara G. called to ask her when she was coming home. During their conversation, Barbara G. asked Emily S. about the missing earrings and watch. Emily S. told Barbara G. the earrings were in Emily S.’s purse on the couch. However, when Barbara G. checked, the earrings were not there. Barbara G. told Emily S. the
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)