In re J.D. CA1/4 filed 6/29/26

Filed 6/29/26 In re J.D. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re J.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.D.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A172689
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct.
No. J24-00406)

In this juvenile wardship proceeding (Welf. & Inst. Code § 602), J.D., a minor, appeals froman order of the juvenile court, declaringhim an indefinite ward of the court for violations of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a), and Vehicle Code section 2800.1, subdivision (a).
The People based their allegations against J.D. on an incident in which a driver and a passenger evaded police in a stolen car and then fled on foot.The sole issue on appeal is whether sufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that J.D. was the driver of the car.We conclude thatit did, and wetherefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
At approximately 12:27 a.m., deputies received a Flock alert for a stolen vehicle passing them.The deputiescaught up to the vehicle and activated their lights and sirens.The vehicle did not stop, however, but instead increased speedwhile driving through a residential area.As the vehicle approached a dead end, both the driver and passenger exited the car while it was still in motion.The car collided with a gate, and the driver and passenger ran in opposite directions as the deputies chased them, with the driver heading toward a residential neighborhood to the left.Dash camera footage shows the driver wearing a black jacket with reflective stripes, dark pants, shoes with a reflective design, and a mask covering his face.The deputies apprehended the passenger, and later identified him as E.D., J.D.’s older brother. They lost sight of the driver, however, when he jumped a fence into a front yard.Later-obtained surveillance footage from a neighbor’s yard showeda person wearing the same distinctive clothing as the driver jumpinganother fenceacross a street and about half a blockaway.
The deputies then waited foradditional units to arrive and requested a drone operator to help locate the driver.Over the radio, the deputies described the driver as about fivefeetten inches tall, “skinny build,” and wearing all black.The deputies later changed the height in the police report to between five feet eight inches tall and six feet tall; J.D. is five feet four inches tall. Once the additional units arrived, officers established a perimeter around the neighborhood. At around 12:46 a.m.the drone took flight, using a thermal camera to search the area within the perimeter.The droneshowed thatthe neighborhood streets wereempty, with no noticeable heat signatures outside of a few animals. However, at around 12:59 a.m., an officer acting as spotter for the drone operator saw a person walking alongthe street where the initial vehicle chase took place. The person had a thin build and was “wearing a dark . . . sweatshirt, jacket long-sleeve top, and . . .dark pants.” The drone then followed the person as they walked up the street and entereda corner residence, roughly eight houses away from the collision site.Before entering, the person stopped, looked up at the drone and then back at the path theyhad just followed.
Officers had detained and identified E.D. by this point.They werefamiliar with his family, and they knew that both E.D. and J.D. lived in the same corner residence that the personhad entered.An officer went to the house and through a front windowobserveda young, shirtless male. The policethen called J.D.’s mother, asking her to tell J.D. to come outside. When he did, they arrested him. J.D. was wearing a dark hooded sweatshirt, dark-colored jeans, and shoes with a reflective design. He was not wearing a blackjacket with reflective stripes.
Officers then performed a protective sweep of the house, and the only people found insidewere J.D.’s mother and grandmother. During the sweep, they did not find a jacket with reflective stripes, but were not looking for it because at the time the officers conducting the sweep did not know that J.D. had been wearing it. They also did not find the jacket in the neighborhood.
At J.D.’s jurisdictional hearing, his mother testified that within 30seconds of hearing the police sirens, she saw J.D. in the living room, but roughly 10 to15 minutes later, she saw J.D. standing outside the front door. She added that she saw him “shortly before” the police officers arrived at the house, which she agreed was around 1:00 a.m. She also stated that there was a long period of time that night when she did not see J.D. and that he and E.D.had been spending time together.
After the close of evidence and argument, the juvenile court found that the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that J.D. was the driver of the stolen vehicle. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, the court declared J.D. its indefinite ward and placed him on home supervision with his mother.
DISCUSSION
J.D. argues thatinsufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that he was the stolen vehicle’s driver. We disagree.
As with other forms of evidence, we apply the substantial evidence test to determine whether an identification suffices to support a finding that an allegation is true. (See People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 257.)“[I]t is not necessary that any of the witnesses called to identify the accused should have seen his face.” (People v. Lindsay (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 482, 494.) “Identification based on other peculiarities may be reasonably sure.Consequently, the identity of a defendant may be established by proof of any peculiarities of size, appearance, similarity of voice, features or clothing.” (Ibid.)
We review this challenge as we would in an adult criminal case.(InreA.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 647, 653.)Specifically, “ ‘we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to decide whethersubstantial evidence supports the conviction, so that a reasonable fact finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”(Ibid.; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.780 [specifying proof beyond a reasonable doubt as standard of decision]; Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1008.)We must assume the existence of every fact in support of the judgment that the juvenile court reasonably could deduce from the evidence.(People v. Morales (2020) 10 Cal.5th 76, 88.)Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.(People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)“ ‘Apropos the question of identity, to entitle a reviewing court to set aside a [fact finder’s]finding of guilt the evidence of identity must be so weak as to constitute practically no evidence at all.’ ” (People v. Mohamed (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 515, 521.)
Here, we find that there was substantial circumstantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that J.D. was the driver of the stolen car.
First, the police chase occurred in J.D.’s neighborhood, the passenger in the car was J.D.’s brother,and their mother testified that they had been spending time together and that there was a long period of time that evening when she had not seen J.D. While these considerations might not sufficeon their own, togetherwith other evidence they support a finding that is not mere “speculation,” as J.D. contends.
Second, the incident occurred in the middle of the night, and the drone videoshowed only one person outside in the neighborhood.J.D.’s counsel conceded in closing argument that J.D. was the person in the video, which was established by his mother’s testimonythat she saw him outside the house around 1:00 a.m., the same time the video shows the person walking up and then entering. It showed him walking along the same street on which the initial incident had taken place, less than 30 minutes after officershad lost sight of the driver. J.D. argues on appeal that the person seen by the drone did not exhibit any suspicious movements, but as the Attorney General argues, by the time J.D. was seen by the drone, he would have had no need to hurry or take further evasive action, “[a]nd it may be inferred that [he] walked casually on the street to avoid seeming suspicious.”
Third,J.D. matched the general description of the driver given by the deputies—a thin black male wearing dark clothing. While officers did not see J.D. wearing the distinctive jacket when he came out of the house, he had ample time to change his clothing or discard the item before his arrest. Through the window, officers had observed him shirtless, indicating he did in fact change his clothing, since he was clothed in the drone video that showed him outside. J.D.emphasizes that there was a six-inch discrepancy between the deputy’sestimateof the driver’s height and J.D.’s own. He argues that the deputy, with eleven years of experience, “must have honed his ability to accurately describe fleecing [sic] suspects after dark.”As the juvenile court noted, however, the deputies only had roughly four seconds to observe the driver before he evaded them. Further, they observed the driver from nearly 30 yards away, in the dark, as the suspect was crouched. In these circumstances, the discrepancy is not so meaningful as toundermine the other reasons to conclude that J.D. was the driver.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
GOLDMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, Acting P. J.
SWEET, J.*