In re K.R. CA3

Filed 4/28/15 In re K.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re K.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C075127 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV134953)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged that the minor, K.R., committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; unless otherwise stated statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code), criminal threats (§ 422), and brandished a knife, a misdemeanor (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found all three allegations to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The court

1

adjudged the minor a ward of the court and committed him to the care and custody of his mother under the supervision of the probation officer subject to certain terms and conditions. The minor appeals. He contends that there is insufficient evidence of an unconditional threat to prove a violation of section 422. We reject his contention and affirm the juvenile court’s order. In an “appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a juvenile court judgment sustaining the criminal allegations of a petition made under the provisions of section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, we must apply the same standard of review applicable to any claim by a criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment of conviction on appeal. Under this standard, the critical inquiry is ‘whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] An appellate court ‘must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence--that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-- such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.]” (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371, original italics.) Section 422 requires the prosecution to prove five elements: “(1) [T]hat the defendant ‘willfully threaten[ed] to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person,’ (2) that the defendant made the threat ‘with the specific intent that the statement . . . is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,’ (3) that the threat . . . was ‘on its face and under the circumstances in which it [was] made, . . . so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat,’ (4) that the threat actually caused the person threatened ‘to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety,’ and