Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JV123619
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained charges of being an unlicensed driver (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)) and making an unsafe lane change (§ 22107) against Julian B., aged 16 (hereafter the minor). She was declared a ward of the court and placed on home probation. One condition of her probation, No. 6, prohibited her from applying for or obtaining a driver’s license for 12 months from the date of the disposition hearing.
Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.
On appeal, the minor contends the evidence is insufficient to support the finding she made an unsafe lane change, and, pursuant to section 13203, the court had no authority to restrict her obtaining her driver’s license. We shall affirm.
FACTS
On June 21, 2006, at 2:30 a.m., the minor who was 16 years old but did not have a driver’s license, was driving her mother’s Ford Taurus and was accompanied by four friends. The minor and her group, who were listening to music and “dancing” in the Ford, were following a Suburban SUV on Truxel Road, which was weaving back and forth across the road’s lanes. The minor was driving “fast,” mimicking the SUV’s behavior by likewise “going from lane-to-lane.”
The minor is not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s finding that she was unlicensed.
At one point, the minor stopped swerving and remained in one lane. However, the SUV continued to swerve and drove in front of the Ford. According to A.S., who was in the back seat of the Ford, “We were swerving; then, like, they came infront, and she turned the wheel. Like, she just turned it. And next thing we knew, we were towards the telephone pole.” At the time the SUV turned in front of the minor, A.S. thought the SUV was going to hit the front of the Ford. The minor turned from her lane and ran into a telephone pole.
DISCUSSION
I.
The minor contends the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that she made an unlawful lane change in violation of Vehicle Code section 22107. We disagree.
“The role of an appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is limited. 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.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1138.)
Vehicle Code section 22107 provides, “No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.”
At the jurisdictional hearing, the minor argued that she had not made an illegal lane change because, at the time the SUV came in front of her, she had stopped swerving from lane to lane and her turning was required to avoid a collision with the SUV. The minor repeats the argument on appeal, but fails to address the testimony that prior to her turning to avoid the SUV, she had been swerving from lane to lane, mimicking the SUV. Since this evidence, clearly credited by the court, constitutes substantial evidence of the violation of Vehicle Code section 22107, the minor’s contention is rejected.
The petition charged the minor in count two as follows: “On or about June 21, 2006, minor Julian [B.] did commit an infraction namely: a violation of Section 22107 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California, in that said minor did unlawfully turn a vehicle.” (Capitalization omitted.)
II.
Relying on In re Colleen S. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 471, the minor contends the juvenile court’s restricting her obtaining her driver’s license for 12 months was prohibited by section 13203. Concluding that neither Colleen S. nor section 13203 are applicable in the present circumstances, we reject the contention.
Section 13203 provides, “In no event shall a court suspend the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle or as a condition of probation prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle for a period of time longer than that specified in this code. Any such prohibited order of a court, whether imposed as a condition of probation or otherwise, shall be null and void, and the department shall restore or reissue license to any person entitled thereto irrespective of any such invalid order of a court.”
Since subdivision (a) of section 12500 provides in pertinent part that, “a person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver’s license issued under this code,” it follows that section 13203’s references to operating a motor vehicle presuppose that the person holds a valid driver’s license. In other words, obtaining a valid driver’s license is a condition precedent to having the privilege to drive or operate a motor vehicle.
Consequently, because section 13203 applies only to the class of persons holding valid driver’s licenses, and the minor does not have such a license, section 13203 does not apply to her.
Nor is Colleen S. of any aid to the minor. Colleen S. held that section 13203 prohibited the court from suspending Colleen’s driver’s license. (In re Colleen S., supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at pp. 475-476.) Because the minor herein was unlicensed, Colleen S. is inapposite.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J, MORRISON, J.