In re Jeremiah C. CA1/5

Filed 9/2/15 In re Jeremiah C. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re JEREMIAH C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEREMIAH C., A144606 Defendant and Appellant. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 84141)

The juvenile court sustained a Welfare & Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that appellant Jeremiah C. committed vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594). On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s finding. We affirm. BACKGROUND On June 24, 2014, appellant and friends were playing around after summer school at Westmoor High School, jumping on parked cars. Appellant jumped onto the hood and then the roof of a red 1992 Nissan Stanza. He slipped and fell on his back, denting the roof of the car. The other boys who had jumped on cars that day did not cause any damage.

1

Other students told a high school administrator about the incident, and appellant admitted to the administrator that he had jumped on the car and dented the roof. The police were summoned, and appellant told a police officer he slipped and fell on the roof of the car, resulting in the dent. It was determined that the dent could not be fixed for less than the $2,500 bluebook value of the car. In December 2014, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) alleging appellant committed felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)). At the jurisdictional hearing in March 2015, the juvenile court granted appellant’s motion to amend the petition to allege a misdemeanor. The court sustained the amended petition, declared appellant a ward of the court, and placed him on probation. Appellant’s restitution was set at $2,500. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the vandalism charge. “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing 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.’ ” (In re Z.A. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1424.) A person is guilty of vandalism if he “maliciously [damages] any real or personal property not his or her own.” (Pen. Code, § 594 subd. (a).) “[A] person acts maliciously either when acting with ‘a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person’ or with the ‘intent to do a wrongful act.’ [Citation.] As our Supreme Court has explained, the first type of malice . . . is known as ‘[m]alice in fact’ and ‘consists of actual ill will or intent to injure.’ [Citation.] However, the second type of malice . . . is known as ‘malice in law.’ [Citation.] ‘Malice in law may be “presumed” or “implied” from the intentional doing of the act without justification or excuse or mitigating circumstances.’ ” (People v. Kurtenbach (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1282 (Kurtenbach).)