In re Dominique K. CA5
Filed 4/15/15 In re Dominique K. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 DOMINIQUE K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, F069757
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JW132159-00)
v. OPINION DOMINIQUE K. ,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. Warmerdam, Judge. Candice L. Christensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna, Doris Calandra and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.
On February 11, 2014, the Kern County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that 15-year-old Dominique K. came within the delinquency jurisdiction of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) because he willfully and unlawfully resisted a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)).1 The juvenile court found the allegation true, adjudged Dominique a ward of the juvenile court, and placed him on probation. On appeal, Dominique contends (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a continuance and (2) insufficient evidence supported the finding that he resisted arrest. We affirm the juvenile court’s findings and orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On November 14, 2013, Officer Miller, who was in uniform and driving a marked car, was dispatched to a particular block of a particular street in response to a report that a female was striking a male with a baseball bat. Officer Miller had been given a description of a female in white pants who was extremely agitated. When he arrived, several people pointed at a vehicle and told him that the vehicle was involved. The vehicle pulled over upon his arrival. Miller stopped his car and got out.2 He contacted the female driver and, because he believed she was involved in the reported crime, he told her to sit down on the curb. Initially, she did not comply, but he grabbed her arm and instructed her again to sit on the curb, and she then complied. Dominique was also in the car. He got out and started yelling at Officer Miller to let go of his sister. Officer Miller told him to sit down next to the female. Dominique did not comply. Instead, he argued with Officer Miller, then began to walk away. Although Officer Miller had little information at that point regarding Dominique’s involvement, he was conducting an investigation and Dominique had been in the same
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)