In re D.E. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Sufficiency of the evidence D.E. contends he was denied due process of law under the federal and California constitutions because insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that he possessed a handgun. We are not persuaded. Our review is limited to reviewing the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and determining whether substantial evidence supports it. (In re M.V. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1518.) To be substantial, evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 298.) We do not reweigh credibility nor resolve evidentiary conflicts (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403), and we accept logical inferences from

3 circumstantial evidence. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) A reasonable inference must be based on evidence rather than speculation. (People v. Davis (2013) 57 Cal.4th 353, 360.) Penal Code section 29610, subdivision (a), prohibits a minor from possessing a firearm. Possession may be actual or constructive. (In re Charles G. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 945, 951 (Charles…