Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re P.A., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. P.A

November 15, 2012

IN RE P.A., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
P.A., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. H.A. Staley*fn2 and Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judges.*fn3 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ118946)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: King J.

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*fn1

OPINION

Affirmed as modified.

I. INTRODUCTION

Following a confrontation between two groups of students at a high school in Moreno Valley, defendant and appellant P.A. (Minor) refused to comply with an order by a Riverside County Sheriff's deputy to disperse and return to class. When he behaved in a defiant and threatening manner toward the deputy, he was arrested.

The Riverside County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that Minor came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code based on two paragraphs: Minor attempted, through threats and violence, to deter or prevent a sheriff's deputy from performing his duty, a felony (par. 1; Pen. Code, § 69), and misdemeanor resisting arrest (par. 2; § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the court found the allegations true.

At a subsequent disposition hearing, the court reduced the felony count to a misdemeanor. The court then declared Minor a ward of the court and placed him in the care, custody, and control of the probation officer. The court ordered Minor to be committed to juvenile hall for two days (which he had already served), to perform 50 hours of community service, and to pay a restitution fine. Minor was continued in the physical custody of his parents and placed on probation subject to numerous conditions.

On appeal, Minor requests that we review the arresting deputy's personnel records, which were produced and reviewed in camera pursuant to a Pitchess*fn4 motion, to determine whether the court erred in finding no discoverable items in the records. He also argues that we should strike the court's statement at the jurisdiction hearing of a maximum term of confinement for Minor's offenses. Finally, he challenges five conditions of his probation.

We have reviewed the records pertaining to the Pitchess motion and conclude that the trial court's determination was not an abuse of discretion. Because the court's statement of a maximum term of confinement was made at the jurisdiction hearing, not at the disposition hearing, we reject Minor's request to strike the statement. Regarding the probation conditions, we reject Minor's argument regarding a condition requiring that he submit to blood, breath, or urine tests for the presence of alcohol or controlled substances; agree with Minor that a restriction on moving is unconstitutionally overbroad; and agree that certain other conditions should be modified to conform to the requirements of due process.

II. FACTUAL SUMMARY

A. Prosecution Evidence

Michael Galvan is a deputy sheriff assigned to the gang special enforcement team in Moreno Valley. On November 5, 2009, he was in uniform and assigned to extra patrol at a local high school. About 1:00 p.m., he received a call that several groups were confronting one another in the "mid-quad" area of the school. Classrooms are located approximately 25 feet from the middle of this "quad."

When he arrived at the mid-quad area, he saw approximately 200 students divided into two groups: one group of mostly Hispanic students, and another group of mostly Black students. Some students were "confronting one another, yelling back and forth. And they appeared as if they were going to fight." He described the confrontation as a "415 on school grounds."*fn5

In order to avoid further confrontation between the groups, Officer Galvan and other officers attempted to disperse the crowd and get the students into their classrooms. They approached the groups and told the students to go to their classrooms. Most students complied and left the area. A few refused to disperse. He told those that remained "several times" to disperse and go to their classrooms. After a minute or so, there were still five or six students who did not leave the area. Minor was one of these.

Officer Galvan approached each of the remaining students separately and told each one individually that they needed to leave the area and return to their classroom. He asked this of Minor "several times," but Minor refused to leave. After the third time, Minor "became visibly angry and upset and began cursing." He said "the F word several times." "Basically," Officer Galvan testified, "what he was saying was, I'm not leaving."

As Officer Galvan approached Minor, Minor clenched his fists like a boxer or fighter and held them up towards his chest. He "bladed" his feet (i.e., put one foot further back than the other) in a "fighting stance." Minor told Officer Galvan, "[Y]ou better not come any closer." Officer Galvan believed that Minor would assault him if he went any closer. Officer Galvan then quickly approached Minor, turned him around, placed him in a rear wrist lock, and held him against a nearby wall. Minor became irate; he cursed, screamed, yelled, and tried to pull away from Officer Galvan's grasp.

Another officer came to Officer Galvan's aid. The two of them gained control of Minor's arms and placed him in handcuffs.

B. Defense Evidence

Minor testified in his defense as follows. On the date of the incident, Minor was standing by a tree in front of his classroom waiting for his class to open. Two of his friends were nearby. Officer Galvan approached him and asked him to go to class. If his class had been open, he would have gone to class. Minor told Officer Galvan two or three times that he could not go to class because the classroom was not yet open.

When Officer Galvan repeated the request, Minor turned around and told one of his friends, "This is bullshit," and "[D]oes the officers gotta be like that?" The friend responded, "[W]hy do cops gotta be like this." At that point, his teacher opened up the classroom, and Minor started walking to his class.

Officer Galvan stopped him and said, "[C]ome here, you're being . . . placed under arrest." Minor turned around and, with his hands by his side, said, "[D]on't come closer." Minor said this because he was already by his class. Minor did not have the chance to explain that he was starting toward his class because Officer Galvan came at him, grabbed him, twisted him, and "slammed [him] against the wall." Minor asked Officer Galvan to loosen his grip, but "he did not listen." Minor tried to pull away because Officer Galvan's grip was hurting him.

Minor said he never yelled; however, his "voice and tone is pretty much always up . . . ." He also admitted to saying "the F word" once: "I was, like, man, F this." However, he believed that Officer Galvan did not hear him say that.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Review of Officer Galvan's Personnel File

Prior to the jurisdiction hearing, Minor filed a motion for discovery of Galvan's personnel records under Pitchess.*fn6 The trial court denied the motion. Minor then sought and obtained a writ of mandate from this court directing the trial court to grant the Pitchess motion. (P.A. v. Superior Court (Aug. 31, 2010, E051203 [nonpub. opn.].) We held that Minor made a sufficient showing in his motion to warrant an in camera review of Officer Galvan's personnel files with respect to the issues of false arrest, falsification of police reports, and excessive force. (Ibid.) We directed the court to conduct an in camera review of the requested personnel files and determine whether they include relevant information and, if so, to disclose the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any prior complainants and witnesses and the dates of incidents in question. (Ibid.)

The trial court conducted the in camera review of Officer Galvan's personnel records and concluded there were no discoverable items.

On appeal, Minor requests we independently review the personnel records and determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding no discoverable items among the records. (See People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1220 ["trial court's decision on the discoverability of material in police personnel files is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard."].)

The subject records and a reporter's transcript of the in camera hearing have been provided to us under seal. Our review of the materials reveals no discoverable information pertaining to issues of false arrest, falsification of police reports, or excessive force. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court's decision was not an abuse of discretion.

B. Trial Court's Statement of Maximum Term of Confinement

At the jurisdiction hearing in February 2011, the court stated that the maximum confinement with respect to paragraph 1 is three years, and the maximum confinement as to paragraph 2 is four months.*fn7 At the disposition hearing in May 2011, the court reduced paragraph 1 to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b). The court did not remove Minor from the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.