In re A.M. CA2/8

Filed 9/18/14 In re A.M. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the B251087 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KJ37078)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Geanene Yriarte, Judge. Affirmed with modifications. Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ******

The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that appellant A.M. committed felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) and possessed implements to commit vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594.2, subd. (a)). We modify two conditions of probation and otherwise affirm the juvenile court’s order. FACTS AND PROCEDURE Interpreting the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, the record shows that appellant acted as a lookout while his companion committed numerous acts of vandalism using orange spray paint. (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809 [review of sufficiency of the evidence claims in juvenile context is same as in criminal cases].) Appellant looked up and down the street as his companion painted letters eight to 12 times on a fence, poles, a door, a fire hydrant, and signs. The property damage from the vandalism was in an amount greater than $400. Appellant was reported, caught, and searched by a police officer. Appellant was carrying two “slap tags,” which are stickers commonly placed on signs, walls, or other private or public property. The stickers are a method of quickly vandalizing property. At trial, no witness testified for the defense. The court sustained the allegations that appellant committed felony vandalism and possessed the implements to commit vandalism, a misdemeanor. The court emphasized that appellant and his companion moved together through numerous acts of vandalism. Appellant was permitted to remain in his home with specified conditions. Those conditions included: (1) “[D]o not be within one block of any school ground unless enrolled, attending classes, on approved school business or with [a] school official, parent, or guardian”; and (2) “[D]o not associate with any tagging crews or any individual from the JKS crew.” DISCUSSION 1. Sufficiency of the Evidence Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the petition. We conclude ample evidence supported both counts.