In re J.P. CA2/6

Filed 3/17/15 In re J.P. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B256967 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J-1300405) (Santa Barbara County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

J.P., a person coming under the juvenile court law, appeals a judgment of the juvenile court sustaining a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)), with the finding that he attempted to deter police officers from performing their duties by making a threat (Pen. Code, § 69).1 Substantial evidence supports the finding. We affirm. FACTS On March 6, 2014, Police Officer Charles Venable responded to a dispatch call to go to a residence because of "a disturbance involving a juvenile." J.P.'s mother had called police. She told Venable that J.P. "was inside fighting with her husband."

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Venable entered the home and handcuffed J.P. He called for an ambulance because he "didn't feel like [J.P.] would transport well in a police car in his condition." While handcuffed J.P. made threats. Venable testified J.P. told the police officers that his brother, a member of the Eastside gang, "would hunt [them] down and kill [them]." Venable said that "the Eastside is one of the two major criminal gangs in the city." He knew who J.P.'s brother was and testified that "[J.P.'s brother is] definitely associated with the Eastside." The prosecutor asked, "[W]as there anything said about his cousins coming to get you as well, being from the Eastside?" Venable: "Yes." Venable was familiar with the people J.P. mentioned in the threats. He said, "I know there are numerous [P.] family members in the city." J.P. was taken to a hospital. His medical "lab work" showed he tested "positive for alcohol and marijuana." J.P.'s parents told police they believed he "was really intoxicated and/or on drugs and hallucinating." The prosecutor asked Venable, "[W]hen the alleged threats were being made towards you and the other officers outside the home . . . , was that said clearly or was that mumbled . . . ." Venable: "It was very clear as he was seated on the curb waiting for the ambulance." The trial court sustained a juvenile wardship petition and found J.P. made threats in violation of section 69. It said J.P. "used threats" to "deter Officer Venable from performing the duty of taking [J.P.] into custody to get him under control and that there was a threat of future violence against [Venable] in the performance of future duty." DISCUSSION Section 69 J.P. contends the trial court erred by sustaining the petition because the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that he violated section 69. We disagree. In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment. (People v. Villalobos (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 310, 321-322.) We do not weigh the evidence or decide the credibility of the witnesses.