Opinion
A157958
01-15-2020
In re M.E., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.E., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Sup. Ct. No. J44301)
This is an appeal from a dispositional order entered on June 26, 2019, after the juvenile court found M.E. in violation of the terms of his probation. M.E.'s appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record to determine whether any arguable issues exist. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [Wende procedure applies in juvenile delinquency appeals].) M.E. was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm.
BACKGROUND
On November 1, 2018, the Solano County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition against M.E. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging felony injury to his girlfriend, E.A. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a), count 1), misdemeanor battery against E.A. (id., § 243, subd. (e)(1), count 2), and misdemeanor battery against his mother (id., § 242, count 3). On November 20, 2018, the petition was amended to reduce count 1 to a misdemeanor, M.E. admitted count 1, and the remaining counts were dismissed. At the dispositional hearing on December 6, 2018, M.E. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and placed in the home of the paternal grandmother—his legal guardian—under probation supervision with certain terms and conditions, including serving 30 days on the electronic monitoring program in lieu of juvenile hall.
On January 9, 2019, a notice was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, alleging that M.E. violated a condition of probation in that he had failed to obey his curfew and his whereabouts were unknown. M.E. was subsequently arrested and admitted the allegation on January 22, 2019. While disposition was pending, an additional wardship petition was filed on January 24, alleging a new felony injury to E.A. by M.E. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). And, on February 28, an additional notice of probation violation was filed, alleging that M.E. had again failed to obey his curfew and his whereabouts were unknown. On April 17, M.E. admitted the February 28 probation violation and the January 24 wardship petition was dismissed. At the dispositional hearing on May 1, 2019, M.E. was continued as a juvenile court ward and placed once more in the home of his legal guardian under probation supervision with certain terms and conditions, including serving 30 days on electronic monitoring.
On May 21, 2019, a probation search was conducted at M.E.'s residence by police detective Miller and probation officer Reeves as part of a larger probation search program. M.E. was not present, but his grandmother directed Miller and Reeves to the living room area where M.E. slept and stored his belongings. While searching a green plastic tote in which M.E. kept clothing and other items, Miller found an unopened vial of Naloxone, used to counteract overdoses of opioids such as heroin, and a small digital scale. Based on his training and experience, Miller suspected that residue on the scale's weight plate consisted of flecks of black tar heroin. Miller and Reeves went to the high school to arrest M.E. for violating probation. At the school, Reeves searched M.E.'s backpack. She discovered clear baggies, some unused and others with what appeared to be marijuana residue, as well as two cell phones and three loose SIM cards. Reeves also found a folding knife with a 2.5-inch blade that locked in place. When Miller examined the knife, it appeared to be covered with the same substance found on the digital scale.
Based on these searches, a notice under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 was filed on May 22, alleging that M.E. had violated his probation by failing to obey all laws. M.E. denied ownership of the knife and stated he was unaware it was in his backpack. He initially stated it belonged to his father, but later claimed it belonged to a cousin. M.E.'s grandmother testified at the probation violation hearing that, at some point prior to the search, she realized some of M.E.'s belongings were at his mother's house. She asked his father to help her pack up his things. And father then bagged up some items and placed the bags and a backpack in her truck. The People argued that the evidence showed M.E. was in possession of heroin and marijuana and had also violated Penal Code section 626.10, subdivision (a), by possessing a folding knife with a blade that locks on school grounds. M.E.'s attorney argued that the backpack had been brought from his mother's house by his father and that the minor was protecting someone.
At the conclusion of the contested hearing, the juvenile court found that M.E. had violated the terms of his probation by possessing a knife with a folding, locking blade on school grounds. In dispositional orders issued on June 26, 2019, the juvenile court, for a third time, placed M.E. in the home of his legal guardian under probation supervision with certain terms and conditions, including serving 30 days on electronic monitoring. M.E. appealed.
DISCUSSION
There are no meritorious issues to be asserted on appeal. An allegation of probation violation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 must be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777, subd. (c).) When a probation violation finding is challenged based upon sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court's role is to decide "whether, upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the [lower] court's decision. In that regard, we give great deference to the [lower] court and resolve all inferences and intendments in favor of the judgment. Similarly, all conflicting evidence will be resolved in favor of the decision." (People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848-849, fns. omitted.) Thus, when " ' "two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts," either deduction will be supported by substantial evidence, and "a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the [lower] court." ' " (In re James D. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 810, 814.)
Although M.E.'s position below was that the knife was not his and he was unaware of its presence in his backpack, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's alternate inference—that M.E. took the backpack from his home, knew the knife was in it, and thus willfully possessed it. We are without power to substitute a different deduction for that of the juvenile court. Moreover, we see no error in the juvenile court's subsequent dispositional ruling.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the juvenile court's dispositional order of June 26, 2019.
/s/_________
Sanchez, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Humes, P. J. /s/_________
Banke, J.