IN RE: M.G. a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINIONFACTS

The juvenile court found 17-year-old appellant M.G. guilty of seven counts of felony vandalism and four counts of misdemeanor vandalism.  (Pen.Code, § 594, subd. (a).)  The court declared M.G. a continuing ward of the court and committed him to a boot camp youth facility for a maximum of 365 days.¹  On appeal, M.G. contends there is insufficient evidence he was the person who committed nine of the 11 acts of vandalism.   We find the evidence sufficient, and will affirm the judgment.

On Monday, May 25, 2009, at approximately 9:20 p.m., Randy Colburn was in his apartment in downtown Visalia when he heard two “crashes,” which sounded “like broken glass.”   He looked out his window, and saw from behind two individuals wearing shorts and T-shirts.   The two individuals were running.   He also saw two broken windows in the Visalia Senior Center.   Colburn reported the vandalism to the police.

Officer Carmen Esparza responded to a dispatch regarding the vandalism at the senior center.   En route, Esparza heard an alarm at Family Health Care Network, located in downtown Visalia.   Esparza approached the business and saw two large windows “smashed.”   She advised the dispatcher to find the business owner.

Officer Josh Speer was also on duty that night, and was dispatched to downtown Visalia at about 9:20 p.m. on a report of “multiple vandalisms occurring in the area” and a witness “indicating ․ they had seen two individuals, white T-shirt, blue jean shorts, or so, in the area having committed the vandalisms.”   Upon arrival to the area, Speer noticed two individuals wearing white T-shirts and blue jean shorts, running near the rear parking lot of the County of Tulare Health and Human Services building.   Speer observed a car in the Health and Human Services parking lot with its rear window and rear driver's side window “smashed.”

That night, Speer also observed and photographed broken windows at the Equity Group building, the Family Health Care Network building, and the building housing the Heart After-School Program, all located in the downtown Visalia area.

Judy Tyler, the owner of a beauty salon in downtown Visalia, testified that she came to work on what she believed was a Tuesday morning in late May or early June and found her window broken and a large chunk of cement on the floor inside.   The cement chunk had also hit the wall inside the salon.

Officer Jarod Hughes was on duty the morning of May 26, 2009, and was dispatched to the downtown Visalia area on calls related to vandalism.   He observed damage at four locations:  Triple A Action Mortgage, Cornerstone Nails, Law Offices of James Preston, and Sacred Mountain (a wellness center).

Greg Vartanian, the manager of a restaurant in downtown Visalia, testified to observing broken glass doors at the restaurant on the morning of May 25, 2009.   Officer Esparza, however, had been on duty since Friday, May 22, 2009, and had received no dispatches for vandalism in the downtown Visalia area until the evening of Monday, May 25, 2009.

M.G. and another minor, B.S., were apprehended together in the downtown Visalia area by police officers the night of May 25, 2009.   Officer Esparza read M.G. his Miranda rights and questioned him.   Esparza asked M.G. about the broken windows in the vicinity, and M.G. stated at first that he “didn't know nothing about it.”   He complained of having to use the restroom because he “had a couple of 40-ounce beers.”

M.G. then told Esparza, “yeah, he did it.   Him and his friend, they both did it together.”   When asked by the court for clarification, Esparza testified that M.G. was referring to breaking windows with B.S., but that M.G. could not identify specific locations because he was “not from here.”

Esparza also observed that M.G. was wearing a white T-shirt with blood on the front of it and that he had cuts on his hands and wrists.   When questioned by Officer Loza the night of May 25, 2009, B.S. stated that he had broken out some windows with his hands and feet.   Loza observed that B.S. also had dry blood on his hands, arms and shirt.

M.G. and B.S. initially were tried together.   Their trials were bifurcated at the end of the first day of trial however, because Officer Esparza was not available to testify for M.G.'s trial that day.   The court found B.S. guilty of two counts of felony vandalism.   On a separate date, after Officer Esparza testified, the court found M.G. guilty of seven counts of felony vandalism and four counts of misdemeanor vandalism.

DISCUSSION

1. “Inconsistent” verdicts

M.G. argues the court “set the standard for insufficient evidence in B.S.'s case,” and that there was no significant difference between the evidence presented in B.S.'s case and the evidence presented in M.G.'s case.   M.G. contends that, since the court found insufficient evidence for nine of the vandalism allegations against B.S., the court should also have found insufficient evidence for those same nine allegations against M.G. We disagree.

In B.S.'s trial, the court, in making its decision, stated “[t]he testimony of the witnesses brackets the time when damage was [sic ] occurred between Friday evening on most occasions, sometimes Saturday or Sunday.   But discovery didn't occur until the morning.   There was absolutely no effort by the Visalia Police Department to try to correlate through the statement issued by [B.S.] which windows he broke and which windows he did not.”

In M.G.'s case, Officer Esparza, who did not testify at B.S.'s trial, testified that she received no reports of vandalism on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, thus bracketing the time period more specifically to Monday night.   She also questioned M.G. specifically about which windows he broke, though M.G. could not recall because he was unfamiliar with the area.

In any case, the existence of inconsistent verdicts by the same trier of fact based on substantially similar evidence by itself does not warrant reversal.   (People v. Palmer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 856, 858 [“If substantial evidence supports a [trier of fact's] verdict as to one defendant, that verdict may stand despite an apparently inconsistent verdict as to another defendant.”].) As a result, we look solely at the sufficiency of the evidence presented with respect to M.G.

Sufficiency of the evidence

In considering M.G.'s claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-such that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578;  People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 269.)   This test applies in both juvenile and adult criminal cases.  (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809.)   The fact that a reasonable trier of fact may find a contrary outcome based on these circumstances does not warrant reversal of the judgment.  (People v. Proctor (1992) 4 Cal.4th 499, 529.)

M.G. contends there is insufficient evidence tying him to the nine acts of vandalism for which there were no witnesses who observed two individuals near the scene of the crime.   We disagree.

All of the vandalism occurred in a limited area of downtown Visalia.   Multiple witnesses, including a police officer, indicated that two individuals wearing shorts and T-shirts were seen in the area, running away from vandalized buildings and/or cars.   M.G. and B.S. were spotted by Officer Loza in the area, and they fled from him.   They were apprehended in the vicinity of the incidents the same night the incidents occurred, wearing clothing that matched the description provided by the witnesses.   Multiple police officers were responding to downtown Visalia that night and none testified that other individuals matching the description of the perpetrators were found in the area at that time.   M.G. was apprehended with cuts on his hands and wrists and blood on the front of his shirt, similar to the injuries and appearance of co-minor B.S., who stated he had used his hands and feet to break windows.   M.G. confessed that he had been drinking beer, that he and B.S. had been breaking windows, and that he could not recall the number or locations of the windows broken.   A rational trier of fact could reasonably infer beyond a reasonable doubt that, given the evidence described above, M.G. committed all 11 acts of vandalism.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court also calculated a maximum confinement time of nine years after aggregating prior petitions, and that M.G. was entitled to 163 days of predisposition credit..  FN1. The court also calculated a maximum confinement time of nine years after aggregating prior petitions, and that M.G. was entitled to 163 days of predisposition credit.

THE COURT *