Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County Super. Ct. No. JW102290-04. Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.
OPINION
The juvenile court committed Jordan S. to Camp Erwin Owen under a seven-year two-month maximum period of confinement after finding he committed residential burglary as a serious felony (Pen. Code, §§ 460, subd. (a), 462, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(18)), petty theft (Pen. Code, § 488), and a probation violation (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777, subd. (a)(2)). Jordan appeals from the burglary finding, claiming insufficient evidence demonstrates he entered an inhabited dwelling. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
About 7:45 a.m. on January 17, 2007, 16-year-old Shalene D. left for school and locked her two dogs, a pit bull puppy and basset hound, in the garage attached to her Wasco residence. According to Shalene’s mother, the pit bull was worth about $400 and they locked it in the garage during the day because it is a very popular dog in Kern County for breeding and fighting.
Shalene returned home around 3:35 p.m. and discovered the pit bull puppy was missing, but the basset hound was still locked in the garage. Both Shalene and her mother noticed that the three garage doors -- one leading to the house, one leading to the backyard, and the main car door -- did not appear to have been opened or tampered with.
Shalene went outside and found 13-year-old neighbor Alberto T. Alberto had arrived home from school about 3:10 p.m. when he saw Jordan and two other youths dressed in black with black beanie hats jump over Shalene’s backyard fence carrying the pit bull puppy. Alberto identified 15-year-old Jordan in a photo line-up provided by Kern County Sheriff’s Deputy Martin Barron.
Another neighbor, Elsa Torres, was home that day about 1:15 p.m. when she saw two pickup trucks pull up to Shalene’s house. Torres saw five teenagers wearing black sweaters and hoods get out of the vehicles and “just walked in” the home. They left out the front door three to five minutes later. Torres thought it was strange, because she knew no one was home.
Although Jordan contends Torres never specifically identified the house as the one with the dogs locked in the garage, her reference to “the house” in her testimony logically refers to the only home relevant to the proceedings.
Nineteen-year-old Francisco Retamoza, the older brother of one of Jordan’s friends, recalled that Jordan was at their house on the day of the incident from “nine-something to 10:00” in the morning until “close to three-something or 4:00” that afternoon. Retamoza was not wearing a watch that day, but remembered he left to run an errand “like 15 minutes before 4:00.”
DISCUSSION
“‘The standard of proof in juvenile proceedings involving criminal acts is the same as the standard in adult criminal trials.’” (In re Babak S. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1088, see also In re Adrian R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 448, 452.) Thus, we “review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence -- that is, evidence that 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. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11, citing People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) The same standard applies when a finding rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) Moreover, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to establish a fact and we resolve any conflicting interferences in favor of the judgment. (Evid. Code, § 411; Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 326.)
To establish burglary, the prosecution was required to show that Jordan unlawfully entered a home with a felonious intent. (Pen. Code, § 459; People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 41.) “Every burglary of an inhabited dwelling house … or the inhabited portion of any other building, is burglary of the first degree.” (Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (a).) A “garage ‘under the same roof’ with the living quarters … is part of an ‘inhabited dwelling house’ within the meaning of Penal Code section 460.” (People v. Zelaya (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 73, 75.) Jordan contends insufficient evidence establishes that he ever entered the home or the attached garage, and that the trial court’s finding that he committed burglary is therefore pure speculation.
Here, Shalene testified she locked the pit bull and basset hound in the garage of her residence when she left for school on the morning of January 17, 2007. Around 1:15 p.m., Torres saw five teenagers in black sweaters and hoods enter and leave the residence through the front door while no one was home. About 3:10 p.m., Alberto saw Jordan dressed in black with a black hat jump over the residence backyard fence carrying the pit bull. Recalling the evidence, the juvenile court deduced that “the minor and some friends, one way or another, found out this dog was there, came by, took a look, and later on I think this young man came back, went back in the house, got the dog, came over the fence with a couple of buddies and went down the street.”
The juvenile court’s finding that Jordan entered the house to take the pit bull puppy is a reasonable and logical interpretation of the testimony presented. We therefore conclude the juvenile court’s judgment is based on substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.