In re D.H. CA2/6 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/16/24 In re D.H. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re D.H., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B330685
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. YJ40856)
(Los Angeles County)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D.H. appeals the juvenile court’s order of home probation,
which was based on a finding appellant violated Penal Code
section 215, subdivision (a) (carjacking). Appellant contends:
(1) the evidence did not support the court’s finding that he
understood the wrongfulness of his conduct; and (2) the court
erred by including a maximum term of confinement in the
dispositional hearing’s minute order. We will affirm with
direction for the court to delete that minute order’s references to
a maximum term of confinement.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Early one afternoon, Jessica Santos parked her BMW in a
shopping center parking lot. When she turned around after
exiting her car, she saw a male pointing a gun at her. The male
was later identified as appellant. He was standing about two or
three feet away from Santos. He was wearing a face mask and a
hoodie. He screamed at Santos to give him the car keys. Out of
shock, Santos initially did not react, but she ultimately gave him
her keys.
Santos saw another male standing about five to nine feet
away from appellant. After giving appellant her keys, the other
male demanded Santos’ bag. She said no, but the other male
pulled it. Santos pulled back and ran. She turned back and saw
the males inside her car. One appeared to be 15 years old or
younger, while the other looked a little bit older—perhaps 16
years old. Appellant was just under 13 years, 6 months old at the
time. A detective who reviewed video surveillance of the area
testified that appellant and the other male targeted Santos.
Appellant’s mother testified she taught appellant the
difference between right and wrong and that he “knows the
difference . . . .” According to her, appellant knew better than “to
take things from people.” Appellant’s mother acknowledged
issues with appellant running away and being influenced by
others. She had filed missing persons reports. She described him
as “out of control.”
The court found true the carjacking allegation. It ordered
home probation, including a period of house arrest under the
Community Detention Program. The court did not set a
2
maximum term of confinement at the disposition hearing, but the
minute order includes that term and its calculation.
DISCUSSION
Understanding of Conduct’s Wrongfulness
Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support
a finding that he understood the wrongfulness of his conduct. We
disagree.
“Penal Code section 26 articulates a presumption that a
minor under the age of 14 is incapable of committing a crime.”
(In re Manuel L. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 229, 231.) To overcome this
presumption, the People “must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the minor appreciated the wrongfulness of the
charged conduct at the time it was committed.” (Id. at p. 232.)
“In determining whether the minor knows of the
wrongfulness of his conduct, the court must often rely on
circumstantial evidence such as the minor’s age, experience, and
understanding, as well as the circumstances of the offense,
including its method of commission and concealment.” (In re
James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 872.) Generally, “‘it is only
reasonable to expect’” that as children approach the age of 14,
they are more likely to understand the wrongfulness of their acts.
(People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 378.)
“We review the whole record most favorably to the
judgment to determine whether there is substantial evidence—
that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—
from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the
requisite finding under the governing standard of proof.” (In re
Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 298.)
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
conclusion that appellant understood his conduct’s wrongfulness.
3
Appellant’s mother testified she taught him the difference
between right and wrong, which he knew. She also stated
appellant knew better than to take things from others. While the
court apparently based its decision on the probative testimony of
appellant’s mother, our review is not limited to the court’s stated
rationale. (Cf. In re Paul C. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 43, 52-54
[reviewing implied finding minor knew wrongfulness of conduct].)
Appellant was also about six months away from turning 14 at the
time of the carjacking. The circumstances of the offense show
preparation and coordination. Appellant’s face mask evinces a
desire to conceal.
Maximum Term of Confinement
Appellant claims the minute order of the disposition
hearing improperly included a maximum term of confinement.
The People agree, as do we. The court did not establish a
maximum term of confinement in its oral pronouncement of
judgment. “‘Where there is a discrepancy between the oral
pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract
of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.’” (People v.
Costella (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1, 10.) Setting a maximum term
of confinement would be improper where, as here, the court does
not remove the minor from his parent’s physical custody. (In re
Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541.) Therefore, we will
direct the juvenile court to delete references to a maximum term
of confinement in the minute order of the dispositional hearing.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court is directed to amend the July 25, 2023
minute order to delete references to a maximum term of
confinement. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CODY, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P. J.
BALTODANO, J.
5
Sabina A. Helton, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Sarah M. Javaheri, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, David A. Voet, Deputy Attorney General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
6