In re A.M. CA2/1

Filed 8/26/16 In re A.M. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the B268136 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ28505)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John H. Ing, Judge. Affirmed. Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Nathan Guttman, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Following a contested adjudication hearing, the juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition (the Petition) filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney alleging that 17-year-old A.M. (Minor) had committed misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 2421) against her father (Father). The court placed Minor in the custody of the probation department and ordered a suitable placement, with a maximum period of confinement of six months. On appeal, Minor contends that reversal is required because the trial court’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, she claims that the battery finding cannot stand because she did not deliberately strike Father and that the blow which scratched his upper lip, causing it to bleed, was an accident—she was merely reaching for her cell phone when she inadvertently struck Father. Minor’s arguments are not persuasive and, accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s finding. BACKGROUND I. The incident On June 13, 2015, at approximately 8:15 p.m. Father called the police. When the police arrived, both Minor and Father appeared to be “upset”; in fact, Minor was “extremely emotional, crying hysterically.” In addition, Father had a scratch to his upper lip. The police questioned Minor and Father separately on the street outside of Father’s home. Minor told one of the police officers that she was a heroin user, that she had used heroin about 36 hours earlier, and that she “becomes emotional when coming down from a high and when withdrawing from heroin.” Minor further explained to the officer that earlier in the evening she had used Father’s cell phone and when Father got the phone back he attempted to call one of the numbers she had recently called and that made her upset.2 When she became upset, she attempted to take the phone back from Father and in