Opinion
C085037
06-14-2018
In re DAVID G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID G., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JV138200)
The juvenile court sustained two petitions charging David G. (the minor) with a total of three counts of misdemeanor theft. The minor now appeals contending, due to his mistake of fact, insufficient evidence supported one of the three true findings. We will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Two petitions were filed alleging the minor committed three counts of misdemeanor theft. (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (b).) We discuss only the facts of count one of the November 21, 2016 petition, which is challenged on appeal. October 18 , 2016 Bicycle Theft (Count One)
An assistant director at the minor's former school saw the minor leaving the school bike rack area on a bicycle. Suspicious, he tried to catch the minor before he left campus. The minor reached a locked, gated fence, threw the bike over the fence, and crawled over the fence.
An officer, called to investigate the bike theft, found the bike at a nearby high school, where the minor was a student. The bike had an undamaged bike lock on it.
The victim testified he was a student at the school where his bike was taken. He described his bike as an "old, beat-up mountain bike," which was stuck on one gear. He had not locked it the day it was taken. When the bike was returned to him, he saw no damage to it.
Video surveillance of the bike rack area captured the minor taking the bike and a teacher identified the minor in the video. Before the incident, that teacher had spoken with the minor in the computer lab for a few minutes.
At the conclusion of the contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found all three theft charges true, including the bicycle theft (count one).
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the minor contends insufficient evidence supported the bicycle theft finding. He argues a mistake of fact negated his specific intent, in that he believed he was taking an abandoned bicycle. He notes, he was seen in the computer lab talking with a teacher for several minutes. The bike was unlocked and in poor condition. And he left the bicycle in plain sight after taking it. We disagree.
"The same standard governs review of the sufficiency of evidence in adult criminal cases and juvenile cases: we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to decide whether substantial evidence supports the conviction, so that a reasonable fact finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540.) We will not reverse unless under no hypothesis is there sufficient evidence to support the conviction. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
Here, substantial evidence supports the theft finding as well as the implied finding the minor did not act out of mistake of fact. The minor took the bike from a school bike rack. Although the bike was unlocked, it had a bike lock on it—indicating it was not abandoned. And to leave the school with the bike, the minor threw the bike over a locked gate, before scaling the fence. These facts suffice to support the juvenile court's finding.
DISPOSITION
The findings and order of June 1, 2017, are affirmed.
BUTZ, J. We concur: RAYE, P. J. ROBIE, J.