Opinion
F042934.
11-20-2003
In re ULISES E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ULISES E., Defendant and Appellant.
Andrew Cappelli, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Janis Shank McLean and Clayton S. Tanaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT
Minor appellant Ulises E. contends insubstantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding he committed residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (a)) and possessed marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)). We will affirm.
BACKGROUND
On the night of January 30, 2001, Evelyn Landers awoke and heard noise in another part of her Bakersfield home. As Landers sat up to investigate, she saw two males coming halfway up to her bedroom. The two intruders immediately fled the home after she told them "get out of here."
Landers subsequently noticed that the door to her garage had been "ripped" from the pet door at the bottom up towards the doorknob and that the door leading into the house was open. Later that night, Kern County evidence technician Joseph Castro investigated the scene and found three latent fingerprints. According to Castro, the fingerprints could have been placed on the paint can up to a year before he found them. Landers knew her son had placed the paint in her garage, but did not know when.
In March 2002, Ulises admitted an unrelated charge of receiving stolen property in November 2002 and the juvenile court placed him in a local boot camp facility for up to a year. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).)
In early 2003, a Kern County deputy sheriff received a report that Ulisess fingerprints matched those found at the Landerss residence. The deputy contacted Ulises at school and arrested him. Incident to the arrest, the deputy found a rolled paper in Ulisess front pant pocket. Upon opening the paper, the deputy "saw what looked like a small cigarette with a green leafy substance inside of it, and had a faint odor resembling marijuana." The deputy explained that he was familiar with the distinct smell of marijuana from his 20-some years of law enforcement experience.
In March 2003, the Kern County District Attorney charged Ulises with residential burglary and possession of marijuana. (Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (a); Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b).) The juvenile court found both allegations true and recommitted 15-year-old Ulises to a local boot camp facility for a maximum term of confinement of six years.
DISCUSSION
Ulises contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile courts findings that he committed burglary and possessed marijuana.
"` "The test on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court must view the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment ... to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence-that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value- such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the minor guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making such a determination we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment ... the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." [Citations.]" (In re Adrian R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 448, 452.)
To prove residential burglary, the evidence must demonstrate the accused entered an inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit a larceny or other felony. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460.) Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove participation in a burglary; thus, witnesses need not actually see the accused break and enter into the premises. (In re Anthony M. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 491, 500-501.)
In People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 931-932, a single fingerprint was found on a pair of sunglasses a few inches from a murder victim. Although it appeared that there had been two prints, one overlaid on the other, prosecution experts identified one of the prints as that of the defendant. Defense witnesses, with equally weighty credentials, testified that the print was not useful or was not that of the defendant. (Id . at p. 932.) Other evidence established that the defendant lived nearby and had been seen near the house in the past. (Id . at p. 934.) The Supreme Court concluded the evidence, albeit circumstantial, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude the defendant committed the murder. (Ibid.)
In light of Bean, the evidence of a fingerprint matching that of Ulises found on a paint can inside Landerss garage was sufficient to support his burglary conviction. Landers had not given Ulises permission to enter her garage, yet his fingerprints were found at the burglars apparent point of entry near the ripped garage door. Moreover, the deputy sheriff testified that Ulises resided near the Landerss residence. Ulises did not offer any credible evidence explaining his fingerprints inside the Landerss home. As in Bean, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude Ulises perpetrated the burglary.
Ulises also contends insufficient evidence supports the juvenile courts finding he possessed marijuana. Specifically, he argues that because the arresting officer testified he found Ulises in possession of a green leafy substance with a faint odor resembling marijuana, there was no evidence that the officer believed the substance actually was marijuana.
"Guilt of possession of a narcotic may be established without introducing the narcotic in question into evidence." (People v. Marinos (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 735, 738.) Like other factual determinations, the prosecution may prove the nature of a substance by circumstantial evidence. (People v. Sonleitner (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 364, 369.) A peace officers belief that a substance is marijuana, based on its odor and appearance and on his experience, constitutes substantial evidence. (Marinos, supra, at p. 738.)
The arresting officer testified that Ulises possessed "a small cigarette with a green leafy substance inside of it, and had a faint odor resembling marijuana." Upon further questioning, the deputy sheriff explained that in his 20 years of law enforcement experience, he observed marijuana on numerous occasions and that it had a "distinct smell." Viewed in light most favorable to the judgment, the juvenile court reasonably accepted the officers implication that the substance found in Ulisess pocket was in fact marijuana.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.