In re K.L. CA2/8
Filed 4/22/13 In re K.L. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re K.L., a Person Coming Under the B240694 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County THE PEOPLE, Super. Ct. No. JJ19437)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
K.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tamara Hall, Judge. Reversed.
Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steve D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________
Minor K.L. appeals from the court‟s judgment sustaining the allegation that he committed residential burglary of Graciela Tinoco‟s home. Because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the allegation, we reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
For three or four days in late January 2012, then 14-year-old appellant K.L. was the invited house guest of Graciela Tinoco “living” with Tinoco and her 15-year-old son, Everardo. Around 9:00 or 10:00 a.m. on January 27, 2012, Tinoco returned home after dropping off her daughters at school. K.L., who had slept the previous night in Everardo‟s bedroom, had not yet left for school. Tinoco was surprised to find K.L. still at home. She testified, “I found him inside the house, but since he‟d spend the night there, I asked him, [K.L.] what are you doing here. Why aren‟t you in school. [¶] He didn‟t answer. He just closed the door. He locked – he locked it, and I said, well who is there then. He said „It‟s [K.L.], I‟m changing.‟ ” A few moments later, K.L. emerged from the bedroom and left the house. Tinoco looked inside the bedroom and saw that dresser drawers containing clothes were open. Because K.L. had been wearing the same clothes for “many days,” Tinoco assumed he had been looking for socks.1 Apart from the drawers, nothing in the room was otherwise amiss or missing. Tinoco testified, “Q. When you said that you saw him in the bedroom one day and he was – said, hold on, I‟m changing. [¶] There was nothing stolen that day, was there? [¶] A. No. [¶] Q. Nothing unusual occurred that day? [¶] A. No.” Five days later on February 1, Tinoco‟s house and a neighboring house sitting in the front of the lot on which Tinoco‟s house sat were burglarized. In investigating the burglaries, a sheriff‟s detective interviewed Tinoco, who had seen the suspected burglars. The detective and Tinoco discussed her discovering K.L. five days earlier at home when
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)