Opinion
B227158
08-23-2011
In re JAVIER C, a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAVIER C., Defendant and Appellant.
Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and David C. Cook for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PJ43669)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Benjamin R. Campos, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and David C. Cook for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The juvenile court sustained two separate petitions filed against appellant, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging appellant committed the misdemeanor offense of disobeying a court order in violation of Penal Code section 166, subdivision (a)(4). The offenses were declared to be misdemeanors. Appellant was ordered to remain a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Appellant was placed in the care, custody, and control of a probation officer, and was ordered home on probation.
Appellant filed timely notice of appeal contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the offenses charged in the petitions. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Officer Jose Mendoza of the Los Angeles Police Department's gang enforcement detail served appellant with a copy of an injunction against the Pacoima Project Boys Gang on October 16, 2008. Prior to serving appellant, Officer Mendoza had spoken with appellant 30 to 35 times about appellant's membership in the gang. The injunction ordered the members of the gang as follows, in pertinent part: "Do Not Associate: Standing, sitting, walking, driving, gathering or appearing, anywhere in public view or anyplace accessible to the public, with any known member of the Project Boys criminal street gang . . . ." The juvenile court sustained two petitions that alleged appellant violated the injunction and, therefore, disobeyed a court order.
First Offense
Officer Carlos Moya of the Los Angeles Police Department's gang unit witnessed appellant in the area of the San Fernando Gardens Housing Project in Los Angeles on April 29, 2010. Appellant was accompanied by two other individuals, one of whom is a documented member of the Pacoima Project Boys Gang. When Officer Moya and his partner approached appellant and his companions, appellant ran away and Officer Moya was unable to capture him.
Second Offense
Officer Rubin Aguirre of the Los Angeles Police Department was on patrol in the area of the San Fernando Gardens Housing Project on June 7, 2010. Officer Aguirre saw appellant emerging from Buildings 22 and 23 in the project, which is surrounded by a fence on which "no trespassing" signs are posted permanently. Appellant was accompanied by Caesar Gomez, whom Officer Aguirre knew to be a member of the Pacoima Project Boys Gang. Officer Aguirre and his partner arrested appellant and Gomez for violating the injunction against the Pacoima Project Boys Gang.
DISCUSSION
The issue on appeal is whether there was substantial evidence before the juvenile court that appellant's acts of associating with a gang member in the San Fernando Gardens Housing Project occurred while appellant was "in public view or anyplace accessible to the public," as specified in the injunction. "[W]henever the evidentiary support for a conviction faces a challenge on appeal, the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could" reach the same conclusion as the court below. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 562.) "All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict, if possible." (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547.) This court will not overturn the juvenile court's decision on evidentiary grounds "'unless it clearly appears that upon no hypothesis whatsoever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached by the court below.'" (In re Man J. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 475, 482, quoting People v. Wong (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 812, 828.)
In the present case, appellant contends that his actions did not violate the injunction because he was within the San Fernando Gardens Housing Project on both of the occasions he was cited. According to appellant, the project "is not a 'public place,' because it is not readily accessible to the public, and a member of the public cannot access the place without challenge." To support this contention, appellant relies heavily on People v. Krohn (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1294 (Krohn).In Krohn, this court decided that a courtyard in an apartment complex surrounded by an "imposing metal fence" with an "automatically locking gate" was "not a public place." (Id. at pp. 1296, 1299.) The courtyard was accessed by an officer who used an emergency key card to enter the apartment's secured parking area. (Id. at p. 1296.) Appellant argues that the project's fencing and "no trespassing" signs are comparable to the "imposing metal fence" with an automatic gate in Krohn. Therefore, continues the argument, the project is not a public place.
The matter on appeal, however, is not whether the project is a public place, but whether the appellant was "in public view or anyplace accessible to the public." On both occasions in question, appellant was detained after officers observed him from their police vehicle. Appellant does not contend that the officers were in an area that would provide a viewpoint generally obscured from public view, and the facts do not support appellant's contention that the project was otherwise inaccessible to the public. Unlike the officer in Krohn, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th 1294, there is no evidence that the police used an emergency access card to gain entry into the gated project, or otherwise entered in a manner that is exclusive to law enforcement and inaccessible to the public. In sum, there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's findings because appellant was seen with gang member companions in (i) public view (ii) in a place accessible to the public. Both of these conditions violated the injunction.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
BOREN, P.J. We concur:
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
CHAVEZ, J.