Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. JW119506-02 Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.
Shannon Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.
In February 2009, the juvenile court placed appellant, K.F., a minor, on three years’ probation, following appellant’s adjudication of violating Penal Code section 422.6, subdivision (a) (interference with exercise of civil rights). In May 2010, following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations that appellant committed a violation of section 12031, subdivision (a)(1) (carrying a loaded firearm on one’s person) and that he violated his probation.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
On appeal, appellant’s sole contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication of the instant offense. The People concede the point. We will reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing.
FACTS
Appellant’s sister, E.R. (R.), testified to the following: At approximately 8:00 p.m. on April 9, 2010, she was asleep in the apartment where she lived (the apartment) when appellant came in, saw that R. had his blanket, and “snatched [it] from under [her].” The two argued, and R. “called the police and told them [appellant] had a gun.” At that point, R. testified, “I think he went out and got [the gun].”
City of Bakersfield Police Officer Christopher Yslas testified to the following: At approximately 11:00 p.m. on April 9, 2010, while investigating a report of a “suspect armed with a firearm, ” he spoke with R. at the apartment. R. told Officer Yslas that she “had been in an altercation” with appellant, and that she believed he had a gun. Subsequently, police found a handgun, “[h]idden within a plastic container” in a bush approximately 40 to 70 feet away from the apartment. Officer Yslas showed the container to R., and she stated it “looked like” one that belonged to appellant’s younger brother. Officer Yslas also showed the container to appellant’s mother, and she stated that it belonged to appellant’s younger brother.
DISCUSSION
In general, in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding in a juvenile court proceeding, the reviewing court is bound by the same principles as to sufficiency and the substantiality of the evidence which govern the review of adult criminal convictions. (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809.) Those principles include the following: “The court must ‘review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence ─ that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value ─ such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1138.)
Section 12031 proscribes carrying a “loaded” firearm on one’s person. (§ 12031, subd. (a).) Appellant argues, and the People concede, there was no evidence adduced at the jurisdiction hearing that the gun in question was loaded. We agree. Therefore, as the People also concede, under the principles summarized above, appellant’s adjudication of violating section 12031, subdivision (a)(1) must be reversed.
DISPOSITION
Appellant’s adjudication of violating Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (a)(1) is reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court for a new disposition hearing on appellant’s violation of probation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Appellant does not challenge the court’s true finding on the probation violation allegation. We note that one of the conditions of appellant’s probation was that he not possess any weapon.