In re M.S. CA3

Filed 7/31/14 In re M.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)

In re M.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C074909 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. 69439)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court sustained a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) alleging the minor M.S. was in possession of live ammunition in violation of Penal Code section 29650 and had violated probation based on that possession.1 The court continued the minor as a ward of the court, committed him for 39 days with credit for 39 days served, and ordered him to an electronic monitoring program for 30 days and probation for 12 months. On appeal, the minor

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

contends insufficient evidence supports the finding that the ammunition was “live.” We disagree and affirm the judgment. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings. (In re Ryan D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 854, 859.) On August 26, 2013, while conducting a probation search of the minor’s residence, the police found ammunition, specifically “six .22 caliber rounds, five .9 millimeter rounds, and . . . a 7.62 round,” in a water bottle in a kitchen cupboard that could not be reached without a chair or stepladder.2 Officer Kevin Knall, who had been a police officer for four years and a member of the Stockton Police Department Community Response Team, a proactive narcotics and gang unit, for one year, executed the search. Officer Knall opined that the seized ammunition was “live” because “[t]hey appeared intact. There was no -- on the back of -- on the casings, there weren’t any indentations where the firing pin would have struck them.” To him, this indicated that “the part of the bullet that would be spent on firing was still inside the casing.” According to Officer Knall, the minor informed officers that his cousin had left the ammunition at the house months earlier, and that of the ammunition seized, some was for a firearm seized in a prior search and some for a gun the police had not yet located. “In reviewing a challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply the following standard of review: ‘[We] consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment and presume the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment. The test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.] Our sole function is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] The