Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JJ14022, Robert Ambrose, Referee.
Torres & Torres and Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Klein, P. J.
Miguel P. appeals the judgment (order for suitable placement) entered following his admission he committed burglary and the finding he engaged in sale of a controlled substance. (Pen. Code, § 459; Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) Miguel P. contends the order sustaining the petition alleging sale of a controlled substance must be reversed because the only evidence that suggested he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct was inadmissible. Miguel P. also claims entitlement to four days of custody credit.
We affirm the judgment as modified to reflect four days of custody credit.
BACKGROUND
1. Procedural history.
Thirteen-year-old Miguel P. (born in November 1992) was the subject of two juvenile court delinquency petitions. One petition filed May 18, 2006, in Department 264 alleged burglary. The other petition, filed August 29, 2006, in Department 202 alleged sale of a controlled substance.
On August 29, 2006, Miguel P. failed to appear in Department 264 for a pre-adjudication hearing and, on the same date, failed to appear for arraignment in Department 202. Both departments issued a bench warrant for Miguel P.’s arrest.
Warrant Detention Reports filed in Department 264 and Department 202 on October 31, 2006, indicate Miguel P. was arrested and detained at juvenile hall on both warrants on October 30, 2006.
On October 31, 2006, Department 264 ordered Miguel P. detained in juvenile hall pending further proceedings in that case.
On November 1, 2006, Miguel P. appeared in Department 202 and was ordered to remain detained. However, on November 2, 2006, Department 264 ordered Miguel P. released to his parents.
On November 15, 2006, Miguel P. admitted the burglary charge in Department 264. The juvenile court ordered Miguel P. home on probation.
On December 14, 2006, Department 202 adjudicated the petition alleging sale of a controlled substance.
2. Adjudication of the sale of a controlled substance petition.
Los Angeles Police Officer Hector Diaz testified that on June 30, 2006, at approximately 6:25 p.m., he was working as part of an undercover narcotics buy team in the area of Sixth Street and Broadway in downtown Los Angeles. Diaz saw Miguel P. in the company of an adult female and an adult male. The female stated, “Chiva, chiva,” which is street vernacular for heroin. Diaz indicated he wanted “4 [balloons] for $20.” Miguel P. responded, “I don’t have that. I don’t have 4. I have 2. I can do 2 for $10 . . . .” Diaz agreed and gave Miguel P. a pre-recorded $10 bill. Miguel P. put the money in his pocket, then spat out two balloons containing a brown substance that later tested positive for heroin and placed them in Diaz’s hand. As Miguel P. walked from the scene, uniformed officers detained Miguel P. and his companions.
Los Angeles Police Officer Mike Pedroza testified he read Miguel P. a Gladys R. questionnaire (In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855) and, in response to Pedroza’s questions, Miguel P. admitted he knew the difference between right and wrong and that selling drugs was an example of something that was wrong. Miguel P. further indicated his father had taught him it was wrong to sell drugs and that selling drugs was against the law. On cross-examination, Pedroza admitted he asked Miguel P. these questions before Miguel P. was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694].
Miguel P.’s father, Francisco P., testified he has taught Miguel the difference between right and wrong and that it is wrong to sell drugs. The prosecutor asked if Miguel knew it was wrong to sell drugs before his arrest in this case. Francisco P. responded, “Perhaps no because of his age.”
Defense counsel asked the juvenile court to strike Pedroza’s testimony based on the Miranda violation. The juvenile court denied the motion, sustained the petition and transferred the matter to Department 264 for disposition.
3. Disposition.
On February 15, 2007, Department 264 ordered Miguel P. suitably placed. The minute order filed in connection with that hearing indicates Miguel P. could be held in physical confinement for a period not to exceed five years. The minute order does not credit Miguel P. for the four days he served in juvenile hall from October 30, 2006 until November 2, 2006.
DISCUSSION
1. The evidence adduced at the adjudication demonstrates that Miguel P. understood the wrongfulness of his conduct.
Miguel P. contends the order sustaining the petition alleging sale of a controlled substance must be reversed because the only evidence that suggested he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436. However, assuming for the sake of discussion that Miguel P.’s responses to the Gladys R. questions posed by Officer Pedroza should have been excluded, there remained sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Miguel P. was aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct.
Penal Code section 26 articulates a presumption that a minor under the age of 14 years is incapable of committing a crime. To defeat the presumption, the People must show by “clear proof” that at the time the minor committed the charged act, he or she knew its wrongfulness. (In re Manuel L. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 229, 231-232; In re Gladys R., supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 867; Pen. Code, § 26.) “In determining whether the minor knows of the wrongfulness of his conduct, the court must often rely on circumstantial evidence [citation] including the minor’s age, experience and understanding, as well as the circumstances of the offense including its method of commission and concealment [citation].” (In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 298.)
Here, although Miguel P. was under 14 years of age at the time of the incident, he was close to that age. “Generally, the older a child gets and the closer he approaches the age of 14, the more likely it is that he appreciates the wrongfulness of his acts.” (In re James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 872-873.)
Also, Miguel P.’s father testified Miguel P. knew the difference between right and wrong. However, even absent the testimony of Miguel P.’s father, the juvenile court properly could infer that Miguel P. understood it was wrong to sell drugs on the street based on the manner in which Miguel P. committed the offense. Miguel P. was in the company of two adults in an area of downtown Los Angeles known for narcotics activity. His female companion was soliciting drug sales by calling out, “Chiva, chiva.” When Officer Diaz approached and requested four balloons for $20, Miguel P. took control of the situation, stating he did not have four but could sell two balloons. Miguel P. removed the balloons from where he had concealed them in his mouth and exchanged them for the $10 bill proffered by Diaz. These circumstances demonstrate that Miguel P. knew his acts were wrong when he did them. (People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 378; In re Jerry M., supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 298.) Thus, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Miguel P. understood the wrongfulness of his conduct.
2. Miguel P. is entitled to four days of custody credit.
Miguel P. contends he is entitled to four days of custody credit for time spent in juvenile hall after being arrested on October 30, 2006, on bench warrants issued by both of the departments of the superior court involved in this case. (In re Emilio C. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067-1068; Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (a).) It appears Miguel P. is correct. Miguel P. was in custody on both warrants for four days. He therefore is entitled to four days of custody credit. (People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178; 1193-1194; People v. Mendez (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 861, 864; People v. Shabazz (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1257-1258.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order for suitable placement) is modified to reflect four days of custody credit and, as so modified, affirmed.
We concur: CROSKEY, J., KITCHING, J.