Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. JJ15673, Judy Fridkis, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Lea Rappaport Geller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Sarah J. Farhat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHAVEZ, J.
Defendant and appellant T.B. (minor) appeals the juvenile court’s adjudication of a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, finding her guilty of petty theft. She contends there was insufficient evidence to establish that she took the victim’s property, or that she had the requisite intent to permanently deprive the victim of property. Substantial evidence supports the petty theft adjudication, and we therefore affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless stated otherwise.
BACKGROUND
A petition filed on December 11, 2007, pursuant to section 602 alleged that minor had committed the crime of petty theft, in violation of Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a). On January 14, 2008, a second petition was filed pursuant to section 602, alleging that minor had committed criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), battery (Pen. Code, § 242), and vandalism under $400 in damages (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)). Minor denied the allegations in both petitions, and the matters proceeded to a contested hearing.
Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a) provides in relevant part: “Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another . . . is guilty of theft.”
Because minor has not appealed the adjudication of the the January 14, 2008 petition, we omit any discussion of the evidence pertaining to that petition.
At the February 4, 2008 hearing, A.D. testified that on October 5, 2007, at approximately 9:40 a.m., she placed her bag on a bench at Fremont High School in Los Angeles. A.D. was talking with a friend approximately six feet away from the bench. When she turned to retrieve her bag, it was gone. A.D. saw a group of three or four girls she did not know, including minor, walking away with her bag, but she could not remember which of the girls was holding the bag. Minor and the other girls went inside a building, and A.D followed them. There, A.D. found the contents of her bag on the floor. She recovered her bag and its contents from the floor but found that her glasses, which had been inside the bag, were missing. A.D then confronted the girls, asking them why they had taken her bag and whether they had her glasses. The girls denied taking the bag or the glasses. A.D. never recovered the missing glasses.
A.J. testified that she was with minor and two other girls at Fremont High School on the morning of October 5, 2007. A.J. saw a bag that did not belong to minor lying on a bench, and she later saw minor with the same bag emptying its contents onto the floor. She did not see minor put her hands inside the bag or go through its contents. A.J. was standing with minor and the two other girls when A.D. approached them and asked if they had her glasses. A.J. and minor both denied having them.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found the allegation in the December 11, 2007 petition that minor had committed petty theft to be true and sustained the petition. Minor admitted the vandalism charge in the January 14, 2008 petition, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The juvenile court declared minor a ward of the court pursuant to section 602, and ordered her placed on probation. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
“‘To determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 553, quoting People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1128.) The same standard applies in reviewing a juvenile conviction. (In re Miguel L. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 100, 105.) Reversal is not warranted unless it appears that “‘upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ [Citation.]” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The elements of the crime of theft are: “(1) the defendant took possession of personal property owned by someone else; (2) the defendant did so without the owner’s consent; (3) when the defendant took the property, he or she intended to deprive the owner of it permanently; and (4) the defendant moved the property, even a small distance, and kept it for any period of time, however brief. (Judicial Council of Cal. Crim. Jury Instns. (2006-2007) CALCRIM No. 1800; see [Pen. Code,] § 484.)” (People v. Catley (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 500, 505.)
To have the requisite intent for theft, the defendant must take property with the intent to wholly and permanently deprive the owner of it, or “‘with the intent to use it temporarily and then to abandon it in circumstances making it unlikely the owner will recover it.’” (People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57, quoting People v. Davis (1998) 19 Cal.4th 301, 307, fn. 4.) “[B]ecause intent is inherently difficult to prove by direct evidence . . . the act itself, together with its surrounding circumstances must generally form the basis from which the intent of the actor may legitimately be inferred.” (People v. Proctor (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 269, 279.)
Minor challenges the juvenile court’s adjudication on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that she took the victim’s property or that she acted with the intent to permanently deprive the victim of property. Substantial evidence supports the petty theft adjudication.
There was evidence that minor took the personal property of another. A.D. testified that she had set her bag down on a bench and returned to find it missing. She saw a group of girls, including minor, walk away with her bag. A.J. testified that she saw a bag that did not belong to minor lying on a bench, and that she later saw minor with the same bag. There was evidence that minor moved the property by taking it inside a building, and kept it for the period of time necessary to empty it of its contents. A.J. testified that she saw minor empty the bag of its contents onto the floor. A.D. testified that she saw minor and the other girls enter a building, that she followed them inside, and that she found the contents of her bag lying on the floor. The taking was not consensual. A.D. confronted minor and her companions and asked them why they had taken her bag and whether they had a pair of glasses that had been inside the bag, but that was never recovered.
The totality of the circumstances show that minor acted with the requisite criminal intent. There was evidence that minor took a bag belonging to someone else, carried it into a building, and emptied its contents onto the floor. Minor then exited the building, leaving behind the bag and the contents that did not interest her. Had A.D. not seen minor and her companions walk away with her bag and follow them into the building, it is unlikely that she would have recovered her possessions. A.D. never did recover a pair of glasses that had been inside the bag. There was thus substantial evidence that minor took the bag “‘with the intent to use it temporarily and then to abandon it in circumstances making it unlikely the owner will recover it.’” (People v. Avery, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 57.)
Substantial evidence supports the petty theft adjudication.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J.