People v. Kelly W.

An intoxicated minor is lawfully questioned by a police officer. The minor tells the officer his name is Kelly K. The last name on his birth certificate is W.-K., a hyphenated name. Here we conclude the evidence is insufficient to prove the minor falsely identified himself to a police officer.

Kelly W. (Kelly) appeals a judgment of the juvenile court finding the allegations of an amended petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 to be true and that he committed the offenses of willful failure to return to custody (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 871, subd. (c), count 1); public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f), count 2); 1 and giving false information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a), count 3). The court continued Kelly’s wardship and released him to the custody of his mother on terms and conditions of probation. We conclude, among other things, that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that Kelly gave a false name to a police officer. We reverse as to count 3, in all other respects we affirm.

Facts

Kelly was in the custody of the Colston Youth Center. He obtained a day pass to leave the facility to go to his mother’s…

I respectfully dissent. One need only to read the case caption to see that there is something wrong here.

Kelly W. was arrested after he was found drunk and asleep on a Ventura sidewalk. When roused by a Ventura police officer, Kelly said his name was “Kelly K.” By that time, he had been a fugitive from juvenile custody for about two months. The petition under which he was incarcerated, the day pass that allowed him to leave custody, and the bench warrant prepared after he failed to return were all issued under the name “Kelly W.” This is the same name under which Kelly W.’s nine prior arrests were recorded. His birth certificate, however, states that his legal name is “Kelly . . . [W.-K.].”

The majority conclude there is no substantial evidence that “Kelly K.” was a false name or that appellant used it with the intent to evade the court’s processes. In so holding, the majority improperly reweigh the evidence and make the same fundamental mistake that the Court of Appeal did in People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11-12 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 413 , 971 P.2d 618 ]. Our only task is to determine whether “ ‘on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant…