California Court of Appeal Mar 8, 2024 No. E081177Unpublished
Filed 3/8/24 In re Z.P. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re Z.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E081177
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPSW2300101)
v. OPINION
K.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael J. Rushton,
Judge. Affirmed.
Michelle D. Pena, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Prabhath D. Shettigar,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
K.M. (father) appeals from an order of the juvenile court finding that he possessed
firearms in violation of a restraining order. He contends the court misunderstood the law
as prohibiting access to firearms, when the law only prohibits possession or ownership of
firearms. He also argues the evidence was insufficient to show he possessed firearms at
A person ordered to relinquish a firearm “shall, within 48 hours after being served
with the order,” file with the court that issued the protective order the receipt showing the
firearm was surrendered to a local law enforcement agency or sold to a licensed gun
dealer. (§ 6389, subd. (c)(2)(A).) “Failure to timely file a receipt shall constitute a
violation of the protective order.” (Ibid.)
When relevant information is presented to the court at a noticed hearing that a
restrained person has a firearm, the court shall determine, by a preponderance of the
evidence, whether that person has a firearm “in, or subject to, their immediate possession
or control in violation of Section 6389.” (§ 6322.5, subd. (a).) In making such
determination, the court may consider whether the restrained person filed a firearm
10
relinquishment or sales receipt. (§ 6322.5, subd. (b)(1).) The court may make the
determination when the domestic violence protective order is issued, or at a subsequent
hearing while the order remains in effect. (§ 6322.5, subd. (b)(2).)
We review the juvenile court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. (In re
Carlos H. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 861, 866.) We view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party “and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to
uphold the juvenile court’s determination.” (In re Cassandra B. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th
199, 210.) “We do not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or
resolve evidentiary conflicts.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.)
B. There Was Substantial Evidence of Current Possession and No Evidence That
Father Relinquished the Firearms
Father essentially claims there was no evidence he possessed a firearm during the
10 days the TRO prohibited him from doing so, since Z.L.P.’s testimony was that she
saw him with guns five months prior to the hearing. However, substantial evidence
supports the court’s determination that he had firearms in or subject to his possession or
control at the time of the hearing on the firearms issue. (§ 6322.5, subd. (a).)
On April 5, 2023, the court found father “own[ed], possess[ed], or ha[d] access to”
firearms and issued the TRO with the firearms restrictions. The terms of the TRO
required him to relinquish his firearms and, within 48 hours of the order, file with the
court the receipt showing the firearms were surrendered to the local law enforcement
agency or sold to a licensed gun dealer. (§ 6389, subd. (c)(2)(A).) At the subsequent
hearing on April 14, 2023, Z.L.P. testified that she saw a black pistol in the glove
11
compartment of father’s car and saw him put it in a lockbox. She said he took the
lockbox into their home, and it was in the closet. Z.L.P. also testified that she saw father
putting together a gold gun in the living room. When asked if she knew where the guns
currently were, she said, “I think they’re inside a lockbox still.” Z.L.P. further testified
that father took the lockbox with him when he left the house on the day mother called the
police (March 31, 2023)—approximately two weeks prior to the hearing.
At the firearms hearing, the court was required to determine, by only a
preponderance of the evidence, whether father had a firearm “in, or subject to, [his]
immediate possession or control . . . .” (§ 6322.5, subds. (a), (b)(2).) Z.L.P.’s testimony
provided substantial evidence for the court to determine that father was in current
possession of firearms, and the court found her to be very credible. Contrary to father’s
claim that there was no evidence he currently possessed a firearm, the evidence indicated,
at least by a preponderance of the evidence, that he took the lockbox with the firearms
inside with him when he left the house on March 31, 2023. Thus, the court reasonably
inferred that father still had the firearms in his possession or control at the time of the
hearing two weeks later. Although father had denied owning or possessing firearms at
the prior hearing, the court did not, and was not required to, believe him. (In re William
C. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 570, 579 [the court judges the credibility of witnesses, resolve
conflicts in the testimony, weighs the evidence, and draw factual inferences].) Therefore,
the evidence before the court indicated that father had current possession of the firearms,
and there was nothing presented to counter that evidence.
12
Further, the court properly considered whether father filed a firearm
relinquishment or sales receipt. (§ 6322.5, subd. (b)(1).) He did not file the required
receipt, and his failure to timely file proof that he relinquished the firearms constituted a
violation of the TRO. (§ 6389, subd. (c)(2)(A).) Accordingly, the court stressed that “the
compelling part” was that father had not complied with its order to divest himself of the
firearms and provide receipts within the time period specified in the TRO. In other
words, in the absence of any evidence that father had relinquished possession or control
of the firearms, the evidence was sufficient for the court to find that he still had firearms
in his possession or control.
Father focuses on the court’s finding that had access to firearms and argues that
the court misunderstood Family Code section 6322.5 as including “access to” firearms.
To the extent father is claiming the court’s order that he violated the TRO should be
reversed because the court only found that he had access to firearms, rather than current
possession, we disagree. The court stated: “I do find that he owns, possesses, or has
access to firearms or parts of firearms or ammunition.” (Emphasis added.) As explained
ante, it found father in violation because there was evidence of current possession, and
“he ha[d] not complied with the Court’s order to divest himself of the firearms and
provide receipts within the time period specified in the temporary restraining order.”
Father additionally asserts that “the court suggested [he] could have testified about
whether he currently possessed any firearms,” and that “the court could not force him to
testify against himself.” However, the record reflects the court simply did not find
father’s general denial of possession credible, and it noted he “could provide evidence if
13
he no longer has these firearms as to what he did with the firearms.” In contrast to
father’s assertions, the court appeared to be referring to his failure to file “the receipt
showing the firearm . . . was surrendered to a local law enforcement agency or sold to a
licensed gun dealer.” (§ 6389, subd. (c)(2)(A).) Again, “[f]ailure to timely file a receipt
shall constitute a violation of the protective order.” (Ibid.) Moreover, father waived any
privilege against self-incrimination he may have had once he chose to testify in the
proceedings. (See People v. Ing (1967) 65 Cal. 2d. 603, 610-611; see also People v.
Harris (1992) 8 Cal. App.4th 104, 108).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s order, as we must,
we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that father was
in violation of the TRO.
DISPOSITION
The court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J. We concur:
MILLER Acting P.J.
CODRINGTON J.
14
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that the father violated a temporary restraining order by failing to relinquish firearms he was found to possess or control.
Issues
Whether substantial evidence supports the finding that the father possessed firearms while the protective order was in effect.
Whether the juvenile court applied an incorrect legal standard by considering 'access to' firearms in addition to possession.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Substantial evidence supports the court’s determination that he had firearms in or subject to his possession or control at the time of the hearing on the firearms issue.”
“Failure to timely file a receipt shall constitute a violation of the protective order.”
“The court reasonably inferred that father still had the firearms in his possession or control at the time of the hearing two weeks later.”