In re Eduardo P. CA5

Filed 7/2/21 In re Eduardo P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EDUARDO P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F081554

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JW120880-00)

v. OPINION EDUARDO P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Lorna H. Brumfield, Judge. Ponce Law Group and Roger Humberto Ponce, Jr., for Defendant and Appellant. Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Amanda D. Cary, and Cavan M. Cox II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION Minor Eduardo P. appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders, which sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition based on the allegation that minor brandished a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 417, subd. (a)(2)(A)), and which committed minor to probation, including a 15-day term in juvenile hall. On appeal, minor contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the allegation that he brandished a firearm, and the court abused its discretion in excluding evidence that tended to affect the victim’s credibility. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain the allegation. We also conclude that any error in the exclusion of the challenged evidence was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 14, 2019, the Kern County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), alleging that minor made criminal threats (§ 422; count 1) and unlawfully drew or exhibited a knife (§ 417, subd. (a)(1); count 2). On January 27, 2020, the parties appeared for a jurisdictional hearing. At that time, the court granted the People’s motion to dismiss count 2 and to add the allegation that minor brandished a firearm (§ 417, subd. (a)(2); count 3). At the jurisdictional hearing, Marvin F.2 testified in the People’s case. He testified that, at one time, he lived in the same apartment complex as minor and his father. However, Marvin moved out of the complex after a couple of months due to an “incident.” Approximately two weeks after Marvin moved out, on the afternoon of November 3, 2018, Marvin went with his 12-year-old son to a retail store to buy ice. While Marvin went inside the store, his son stayed in the parking lot in Marvin’s Jeep.