Opinion
F053342
1-2-2008
In re MICHAEL B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL B., Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
THE COURT
INTRODUCTION
Appellant, Michael B., was charged in a petition filed on May 3, 2007, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, with misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)). At the conclusion of a contested jurisdictional hearing on June 12, 2007, the juvenile court found the allegation true. At the dispositional hearing on June 26, 2007, the juvenile court placed Michael on probation not to exceed three years, and placed in him in his parents custody.
Michaels appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Michael was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on October 16, 2007, we invited Michael to submit additional briefing. To date he has not done so.
FACTS
On February 14, 2007, Kerry Stevens, the dean of students at Michaels high school, saw the word "Drips" written on a glass case in the schools hallway. Because it was written in white shoe polish, it was removed by a janitor. Unidentified witnesses told Stevens that Michael was responsible for the graffiti. Michael was brought to Stevens office at about 11:00 a.m. Later, Michael was questioned by a police officer with Stevens present. During this questioning, Michael admitted writing the graffiti. Michael said he did it because he was bored and he knew what he did was stupid. Michael also said he wrote the graffiti with a white shoe cleaner pen, which he threw away when he was done.
Michael testified that he confessed because he was threatened with detention in juvenile hall if he failed to do so by Stevens. The trial court initially sustained the prosecutors objection that Michaels statement was hearsay. Thereafter, the court permitted the statement because the words were spoken in Michaels presence. Michael explained that he felt his only choice was to confess. Michael said he was sitting in the deans office and the police officer was writing down everything Michael said.
Michael asserted he was in the office waiting three hours to talk to the dean. He was in the room with a counselor. The officer spoke to Michael about 20 minutes. Michael denied having anything to do with the tagging.
Stevens was called as a rebuttal witness. Stevens thought he brought Michael into his office around 11:00 a.m. Stevens called the officer, who usually responds within 20 minutes. Stevens explained that for a period of time Michael was either sitting with Stevens in his office, or sitting outside his office. Stevens estimated the total time Michael waited as "no more than 30 minutes." The total time Michael was in the office was an hour to an hour and a half.
Stevens denied threatening Michael. Stevens did not see the officer raise his voice or threaten Michael. Stevens denied threatening to send Michael to juvenile hall and could not remember whether the investigating officer mentioned juvenile hall to Michael. No other evidence was presented at the hearing. Defense counsel argued that Michaels confession was not voluntary because he had waited too long for the police officer to arrive, making it a confession given under duress. Defense counsel further argued that there was no physical evidence tying Michael to the crime. The court found the allegation true.
The probation report noted Michaels grade point average was . 814 and he had 91 credits out of a possible 137.50. Michael had numerous absences, was defiant, and disrupted school activities. The probation report noted Michael owed restitution in the amount of $75 and recommended a general restitution fee of $50. The probation officer recommended that Michaels driving privilege be suspended.
The juvenile court placed Michael on probation. The court noted that Michaels grade point average was poor. Among the conditions of probation were that Michael was to spend 64 hours in the juvenile court work program, to enroll in school, to seek counseling as directed by the probation officer, and to not enter school property unless he was enrolled there. The court imposed a search condition on probation as well as a drug and alcohol testing condition. The court also imposed a curfew condition of probation. The court ordered Michael into counseling as directed by the probation officer. Michael was ordered to pay victim restitution in the amount of $75 and to pay a restitution fine of $50. The court also suspended Michaels driving privilege for two years, but permitted him to apply for a restricted license to travel to and from work and school upon a showing that he has a passing grade point average of at least 2.0.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in an appeal from a juvenile proceeding, our court reviews the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine if there is substantial evidence — evidence that is credible and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense. (In re Ryan D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 854, 859.) We are in no position to weigh conflicts or disputes in the evidence. We consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving that party the benefit of every reasonable inference which can be drawn from that evidence tending to establish the correctness of the trial courts decision. We resolve all conflicts in favor of the trial courts decision. We view the entire record to find any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which supports the decision of the trier of fact. (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1373.) There was substantial evidence that Michael committed vandalism from the testimony of the school dean and from Michaels confession. Although he proffered conflicting evidence, we resolve all conflicts in favor of the juvenile courts decision.
At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court placed Michael on probation. The terms and conditions of probation appear to be reasonably related to Michaels rehabilitation, even though he was only found to have committed a misdemeanor. Michael was struggling to maintain sufficient grades in school and was disruptive there as well. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, subd. (b); In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1033 [conditions of probation impermissible for adult probationer may be imposed in rehabilitation of minors].)
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. --------------- Notes: Before Harris, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Levy, J.