In re A.R. CA6

California Court of Appeal Sep 22, 2014 No. H039844Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the minor possessed a stolen vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 496d, based on the trial court's discretion to credit the mother's prior statement that she had seen the minor driving the car.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the minor possessed a stolen vehicle under Penal Code section 496d.
Whether the juvenile court's findings were inconsistent due to the acquittal on the Vehicle Code section 10851 charge.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court had before it minor’s mother’s earlier statement to the police asserting she had seen minor drive the car, which adequately demonstrated minor had actual, not constructive, possession of the car.”

“the trial court was entitled to disbelieve her testimony at the hearing and give credit to her prior statement to the police officers.”

“sufficient evidence supports the court’s finding that minor violated section 496d.”

Filed 9/22/14 In re A.R. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A.R., a Person Coming Under the H039844 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 3-12-JV39616A)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

A.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court found true the allegations that A.R. (minor) received a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d) 1 and provided a false name to a peace officer (§ 148.9). Following a dispositional hearing, minor was placed on probation. On appeal, minor argues the court erred because there was insufficient evidence he possessed the stolen car. We reject this argument and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Wardship Petitions On October 23, 2012, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office filed a juvenile wardship petition (the “A” petition) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 charging minor with a count of buying or receiving a stolen motor vehicle (§

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

496d) and a count of disturbing the peace at school (§ 415.5, subd. (a)). The following month, the district attorney’s office filed a second petition (the “B” petition) charging minor with a count of receiving a stolen motor vehicle (§ 496d). In January 2013, minor admitted the count of disturbing the peace at school (§ 415.5, subd. (a)) from the “A” petition and the count of receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d) from the “B” petition. The court declared him a ward of the court and he was placed on probation. On February 14, 2013, the district attorney’s office filed another petition (the “C” petition) charging minor with a count of residential burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)). Minor admitted the count of burglary and he was continued as a ward of the court and reinstated on probation. On May 16, 2013, a fourth juvenile wardship petition was filed by the district attorney charging minor with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d; count 2) and providing a false name to a peace officer (§ 148.9; count 3). The Contested Jurisdictional Hearing A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on June 10, 2013. Edwin Joel Lopez Amaya (Lopez), the victim, testified on behalf of the People. Lopez asserted that on or around May 9, 2013, he discovered his car, a blue 1995 Honda Civic, was missing. Lopez had parked his car on the street outside his home at approximately 10:00 p.m. the night before and had not given anybody permission to drive it. Lopez did not recognize minor and had never given minor permission to drive his car. Lopez notified the police about his missing car. Detective Ryan Langone, who was assigned to the Santa Clara Auto Regional Task Force, testified that around 4:20 p.m. on May 14, 2013, he saw a blue Honda with unlocked doors parked on a street corner. Langone conducted a vehicle inquiry with the Department of Motor Vehicles and learned the car had been reported stolen by the San

In re A.R. CA6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief