People v. A.L. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

A.L. contends the evidence was insufficient to show that he knowingly ingested fentanyl. We disagree. “‘[W]e review the entire record in the light most favorable to the [juvenile court’s findings] to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find” (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 701), by a preponderance of the evidence (In re Eddie M. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 480, 486), that A.L. knowingly violated a probation condition (People v. Galvan (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 978, 982). We draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the findings made by the court below, and presume the existence of every fact the court could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482, 515.) But it is immaterial whether we

2 would have drawn those same inferences (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 811-812); our job is not to reweigh the evidence or reevaluate witness credibility (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314). Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that A.L. knowingly ingested fentanyl. Knowledge of a drug’s…