Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J36176
Haerle, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Nathaniel D. was declared a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after the juvenile court sustained a petition alleging that (1) defendant had been in possession of a knife on school grounds, a violation of Penal Code section 626.10 and (2) had committed misdemeanor battery (§ 242). On appeal, Nathaniel D. argues that (1) substantial evidence does not support the court’s dispositional order and (2) the court erred because it did not specifically find which item defendant possessed illegally. Neither of these contentions has any merit and we affirm the order.
All further statutory references re to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Adam F., a student at Vallejo High School in Solano County, was in auto shop class on January 8, 2006, sitting in a truck and eating his lunch, when defendant approached him. Defendant came toward him, grabbed him out of the truck, pushed him against a fence and tried to twist his wrist.
Defendant accused Adam F. of “talking about” him. The two boys went back into the building. While they were in the “tool room” -- a room where “we kind of hand all the tools to the kids and let them use them on the vehicles that we have in the room” – defendant “pointed – he had the knife in his hand. He was saying that you better go hide somewhere.”
Adam F. stated that defendant got this knife “from a friend of his named Matt . . . .” Adam F. was shown a knife, which he identified as “a Rigger original knife that has a built-in cover to it. You pull the blade up – the clip on the side, pull the blade out and the black end locks to the back in front of it acting like a dagger.” Adam F. testified that the “Rigger” was the knife he saw in defendant’s hand. Defendant “had the knife toward me” and told Adam F. that he “better go hide.”
Adam F. told his parents what had happened and his mother called one of the principals. The next day, Adam F. was called into the office. He was shown three knives. He recognized one of those knives as the knife defendant had threatened him with. It was the same knife he had been shown in court and had identified as a “rigger.”
Adam F. testified that defendant told him he wasn’t supposed to be in the truck he was sitting in. Adam also testified that another boy he was with, Joel F., was also pushed up against the fence by defendant. Joel F. did not make a complaint. Adam denied that defendant had a piece of chicken in his hand rather than a knife.
Nicole Anderson, an assistant principal at Vallejo High School, testified that on January 9, 2006, she called defendant into her office after there was a report that he had “possibly brandished a knife at another student.”
Defendant was questioned, searched and arrested. Nicole Anderson was shown a second exhibit, different from that shown to Adam F., and identified it as a knife found on defendant when he was searched. Asked to describe it, she responded, “I don’t know the exact name for all of them. But they are tools. And then, I know the part that was the most concern was the knife portion that’s on there, which is considered to be a dangerous object on campus. So that part is not allowed on our school grounds.” She was shown a third knife, which she stated was also found in defendant’s possession. She described this as a “utility tool with an attachment that appears to be a knife . . . .”
Anderson also questioned Matthew S., a friend of defendant. He had in his possession “the alleged knife that was described that was brandished by [defendant] to another student.” She identified the knife that Adam F. testified had been brandished by defendant as the knife found in Matthew’s possession. She described it as “a switchblade or knife.”
On cross-examination, Anderson was asked about an Education Code rule that permits a student to have knife when there is a reasonable purpose on campus for them to have one. Anderson stated that this applied only “with permission from the school site, and with the administration in particular.” She also stated that defendant did not have permission to possess either of the knives in his possession at the time he was searched.
Defendant also testified. On January 8, 2006, he was in auto shop class. He was working on a truck that was outside. When the lunch bell rang, he put the tools he was using underneath the front seat and locked one of the doors. Because he had the keys to the truck, he was responsible for it. He came back from the lunch period a few minutes early and saw three people near the truck. When he got up to the truck he “pulled” Adam F. and Joel F. “out of the driver’s side” of the truck. He thought someone might have been stealing something from the truck. He locked up the truck, told the three that they could not be in there and then left. When he looked back, he saw that Adam F. was “pushing Joel F. up against the fence.”
Defendant thought Adam might have a knife in his hand, so he went down to the fence, grabbed Adam to keep him out of trouble, and “pushed him up against the fence to defend Joel . . . .” Adam raised his hand and swung at defendant. During this altercation, defendant told Adam, “It’s not your place.”
A little while later that day, defendant was eating a lunch from Kentucky Fried Chicken in the auto shop tool room. He had been asked by the teacher to supervise other students, and was in the tool room “keeping an eye on the tools to make sure they get back to where they need to be.” When Adam came up to the tool room window, defendant, having grown tired of Adam trying to eat his lunch without paying for it, pointed at Adam and said, “Go hide.” He pointed his finger at Adam or, “[i]f anything else I had in my hand would have been a piece of chicken.” Adam F. replied that he was going to tell one of the coaches. Defendant thought that Adam was threatening him because Adam would, on other occasions when he had been caught doing something wrong, “lie about it just to keep himself out of trouble.”
At no time during the rest of the day, including the time when they were in class together, and during wrestling practice, did Adam say anything about defendant pulling a knife on him.
Defendant owned the Swiss Army knife and Leatherman knife the district attorney had earlier shown during the hearing. He explained that he carried these knives because “I’m an Eagle Scout, and I carried a knife most of my life. The Leatherman is a pair of pliers and screwdriver that I use in different classes. I fixed – since I fixed – sharpened electronic sharpenings and everything else for different teachers, English, science, and I kept the Leatherman in my backpack. The Swiss Army knife is a first aid knife. I have used it in wrestling, camping and everything else. And I have kept that in my pocket.” He had never used a knife in any situation for violence. Adam F. had seen, on other occasions, the knife carried by Matthew S.
Matthew S. testified that he knew both defendant and Adam F. On January 8, 2006, he was in the tool room eating lunch. Adam F. came up the window of the room and asked for some of the food. Because Adam hadn’t paid for the lunch, Matthew refused. Adam F. was angry. At no time did Matthew see a knife in defendant’s hands. Matthew S. was searched the next day and a knife was found in his possession. He was expelled. Adam had seen Matthew in possession of that knife “a lot . . . pretty much every day that he’s been in the auto shop.” Matthew used the knife to “cut away seat belts, cut away chairs, cut away leather from steering wheels.” Matthew also testified that Adam had a reputation for dishonesty. Adam would change his story, and was dishonest. Matthew agreed that the school did have tools for the students to use, but he used his own because it was in better condition.
The juvenile court sustained the petition as to one felony count of having a knife on school grounds and one misdemeanor count of battery.
This timely appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Substantial Evidence
Defendant contends that the evidence in support of the court’s finding that defendant had possessed a weapon on school grounds in violation of code section 626.10, subdivision (a), is “insufficient.” Despite this, he states we must conduct a de novo review. He is incorrect. The applicable standard of review on appeal of a claim of insufficient evidence is the substantial evidence standard of review. Moreover, “[t]he standard of proof in juvenile proceedings involving criminal acts is the same as the standard in adult criminal trials.” (In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275.) In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, “[a]n appellate court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment in order to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that a reasonable trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (In re Ricky T . (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1136.) “We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence . . . .” (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at p. 275.) In addition, “we must make all reasonable inferences that support the finding of the juvenile court.” (Ibid.) “The testimony of just one witness is enough to sustain a conviction, so long as that testimony is not inherently incredible.” (In re Daniel G. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 824, 830.) “The trier of fact determines the credibility of witnesses, weighs the evidence, and resolves factual conflicts. We cannot reject the testimony of a witness that the trier of fact chooses to believe unless the testimony is physically impossible or its falsity is apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions. As part of its task, the trier of fact may believe and accept as true only part of a witness’s testimony and disregard the rest. On appeal, we must accept that part of the testimony which supports the judgment.” (Id. at p. 830.)
Section 626.10, subdivision (a), provides that “[a]ny person . . . who brings or possesses any. . . knife having a blade longer than 2 1/2 inches, folding knife with a blade that locks into place . . . upon the grounds of, or within, any public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, is guilty of a public offense, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.” Section 626.10, subdivision (c), provides that this prohibition does not apply when the offending knife is possessed “at the direction of a faculty member . . . or a certificated or classified employee of the school for use in a . . . school-sponsored activity or class.”
Here, the evidence showed that defendant brandished a “rigger” knife in Adam F.’s direction and threatened him. Adam F. identified this knife, which was later found to be in possession of defendant’s friend, as the knife that he had seen in defendant’s possession. In addition, defendant also admitted to being in possession of two knives while on school grounds: a Swiss Army knife and a Leatherman knife. Despite the fact that any of these knives might be put to perfectly innocuous uses, section 626.10 criminalizes their possession on school grounds.
Defendant, however, argues that the exception set out in section 626.10, subdivision (c), for knives possessed at the “direction” of a faculty member or school employee “for use in a . . . school-sponsored activity or class” applies here. He contends that the evidence established that he had such permission and, therefore, the court erred in finding him in violation of section 626.10, subdivision (a). He is wrong.
The single employee of the school who testified stated that defendant did not have permission to possess either of the knives in his possession at the time he was searched. Nor was there any evidence that defendant had permission to possess the knife the victim stated he saw in his hands. Two letters presented to the court at the time of the dispositional hearing suggested that defendant used knives to assist teachers in performing repairs, and that defendant was permitted to check out tools. However, neither letter provides any evidence that defendant had permission to carry any of the three knives he possessed on January 8, 2006, for a school-sponsored activity or class.
There was substantial evidence that defendant possessed each of these three knives and, therefore, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of a violation of section 626.10, subdivision (a).
Defendant also agues that the juvenile court erred because it did not specifically state which of the three knives violated section 626.10, subdivision (a). The juvenile court was not required to make an explicit factual finding in this regard. We presume that the trial court correctly instructed itself on the applicable law and correctly applied it and, therefore, find no error. (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644, overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13; People v. Hoxie (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 901, 914.)
Nor are we persuaded by defendant’s argument that, in the absence of such a finding, he cannot determine whether the knife on which the court based its order was actually a “knife” as defined by the statute. The court visually inspected each of these knives and determined that they satisfied the statute. Defendant’s citation, in his reply brief, to In re Rosalio S. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 775, 777, is of no assistance. In that case, the court determined that a trial court had mis-measured the length of the blade of the Leatherman knife before it. Here, however, there was no dispute about the length of the blades of any of the knives possessed by defendant. We find no error.
IV. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: Kline, P.J., Lambden, J.