In re C.R. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

The resisting arrest finding C.R. contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the juvenile court’s finding that he resisted arrest. We disagree. We review C.R.’s contention applying the same standards used to assess the sufficiency of the evidence to support an adult criminal conviction. (In re V.V. (2011)

3 Cal.4th 1020, 1026.) Specifically, the evidence is sufficient to uphold the juvenile court’s finding if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) While we must ensure that the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, we will not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts therein, or reappraise the credibility of witnesses. (Ochoa, at p. 1206.) Reversal is permitted only if “it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support’” the finding that C.R. resisted arrest. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) To sustain the resisting arrest allegation, there must be sufficient proof that C.R. “‘“willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed…