In re Y.C.

Filed 11/29/05 In re Y.C. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re Y. C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Y. C., Defendant and Appellant.	F047872 (Super. Ct. No. 05CEJ600237-1) OPINION

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Dale Ikeda, Judge.

Thea Greenhalgh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, J. Robert Jibson, Raymond L. Brosterhous II, and Janine R. Busch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

The court found that appellant, Y. C., was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after it sustained petition allegations charging him with possession of a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)), disobeying a court order (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (a)(4)), and possession of less than an ounce of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358, subd. (b)). On appeal, Y. C. contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the court’s finding that he possessed a dirk or dagger. We agree and will reverse the court’s true finding as to this offense.

FACTS

Y. C., a self-admitted gang member, was served with a gang injunction on December 1, 2004. On February 14, 2005, Fresno Police Detective Ray Garcia spotted Y. C. near a park in an area covered by the injunction. During a consent search, Detective Garcia found a baggie containing marijuana and a folded Buck knife with a three-to-four-inch blade in Y. C.’s front pants pocket.

At Y. C.’s adjudication hearing, Detective Garcia testified that the knife he found on Y. C. was folded when he found it.

DISCUSSION

Y. C. contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the court’s finding that he possessed a dirk or dagger because a folded knife does not meet the statutory definition of a dirk or dagger. Respondent concedes and we agree.

Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(4) makes it unlawful to carry a dirk or dagger.

Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (c)(24) defines a dirk and dagger as follows:

“As used in this section, a ‘dirk’ or ‘dagger’ means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death. A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife . . . or a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.” (Emphasis added.)

Here, Detective Garcia’s testimony was clear that Y. C. possessed a folding knife that was in a folded position when Garcia recovered it. Accordingly, we find the evidence insufficient to sustain the court’s finding that Y. C. possessed a dirk or dagger within the meaning of Penal Code section 12020. (Accord, In re George W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1214-1215.)

DISPOSITION

The court’s true finding on the possession of a dirk or dagger charge is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for a new disposition hearing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Courtesy of California Legal Resource Directory, a source for providers and consumers of legal resources. Because we know legal.

Escondido Lawyers are available and standing by to help you.

^* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Dawson, J.