In re Robert O. CA5

California Court of Appeal Jul 25, 2014 No. F068124Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court reversed the juvenile court's finding that the appellant knowingly received stolen property, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant knew the firearm in his possession was stolen.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the appellant knowingly possessed stolen property under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a).

Disposition. reversed in part and affirmed in part

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Robert says the evidence failed to establish he knew the item he was found to have possessed — the .40-caliber Glock handgun found by the weight bench — was stolen. The People concede reversal is required. We agree.”

Filed 7/25/14 In re Robert O. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ROBERT O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F068124

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JL004638)

v. OPINION ROBERT O.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. David W. Moranda, Judge. Caitlin U. Christian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, appellant Robert O. was found to have possessed a concealable firearm for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code,1 §§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A), 29610; count 1); possessed live ammunition (§ 29650; count 2); knowingly received, concealed, or withheld stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 3); and actively participated in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 4). He was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and was placed on probation with various terms and conditions and ordered to pay a restitution fine. He now contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the true finding on count 3. We reverse that finding, but otherwise affirm. FACTS I PROSECUTION EVIDENCE On July 6, 2013, members of the Gang Violence Suppression Unit served a search warrant at Roberto Garcia’s home in Merced. As they approached, Officer Alvarez noticed three subjects — Mario Jimenez, David V., and Robert — standing in front of the residence. All three immediately ran toward the house. Officers ordered Jimenez and David to the ground and detained them. At the same time, Alvarez saw Robert in the open, detached garage. Robert was standing next to a weight bench, looking startled, with his hands up. He was wearing a red cloth belt. As a gang officer, Alvarez knew

In re Robert O. CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F068124

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief