Filed 12/14/21 In re R.A. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re R.A., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

2d Juv. No. B311608

(Super. Ct. No. 2020031711)

(Ventura County)

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.A.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court sustained a petition filed against R.A. 

finding that he committed a misdemeanor of unlawful possession 

of alcohol by a minor in a public place. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 

25662, subd. (a); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) The juvenile court’s 

disposition order placed appellant home on probation for six 

months without wardship. Appellant contends there was 
2

insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding. We 

disagree and affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 18, 2020, at approximately 4:35 p.m., two 

Ventura County Sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to a 

residential complex in response to a call of a noise disturbance 

and possible juveniles drinking alcohol. The first deputy who 

arrived at the scene later testified that he observed a group of 

individuals situated in a semicircle around a makeshift table in a 

grassy area near the residential complex and open to the public. 

Appellant and another individual stood next to a vehicle 

approximately 10 to 15 feet from the individuals seated around 

the table.

The second deputy testified that when he arrived at the 

scene, he observed “empty beer cans and bottles surrounding the 

area,” as well as what appeared to be “numerous cases” of an 

alcoholic beverage. He also observed a half empty beer bottle on 

the makeshift table a couple of feet in front of where appellant 

was standing. When the deputy asked appellant “[h]ow many 

have you drank,” appellant responded,“three or four.” The 

deputy then asked how old appellant was, to which he replied 

that he was fifteen. Appellant was subsequently cited for being a 

minor in possession of alcohol and released to a family member. 

In November 2020, the district attorney’s office filed a

juvenile petition alleging in count one that appellant committed a 

misdemeanor of unlawful possession of alcohol by a minor in a 

public place and requesting wardship. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 

25662, subd. (a); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.)
3

In February 2021, following a contested hearing, the 

juvenile court found the allegation in count one of the petition to

be true. 

In March 2021, at the disposition hearing, the juvenile 

court placed appellant home on probation for six months without 

wardship.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to 

sustain the juvenile court’s finding that he possessed alcohol in a 

public place. His contention is without merit. 

Our role in this appeal is limited. “In assessing the 

sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the 

light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it 

discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value 

such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] Reversal on this 

ground is unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no 

hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to 

support [the conviction].’” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 

331 (Bolin).) “We neither reweigh the evidence nor reevaluate 

the credibility of witnesses. [Citation.] We presume in support of 

the judgment the existence of every fact the [juvenile court]

reasonably could deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Jennings

(2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 638-639 (Jennings).) The “testimony of a 

single witness is sufficient to support a conviction” unless the 

testimony is “physically impossible or inherently improbable.” 

(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.)

Business and Professions Code section 25662, subdivision 

(a) provides: “[A]ny person under 21 years of age who possesses 

any alcoholic beverage on any street or highway or in any public 
4

place or in any place open to the public is guilty of a 

misdemeanor . . . .” 

“The essential elements of possession of a controlled 

substance are ‘dominion and control of the substance in a 

quantity usable for consumption or sale, with knowledge of its 

presence and of its restricted dangerous drug character.’” (People 

v. Palaschak (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1236, 1242 (Palaschak).) These 

elements can be established circumstantially. (Ibid.)

Appellant concedes he was under 21 years of age at the 

time of the incident, and he concedes that he “consumed beer,”

but he contends there is no substantial evidence to support the 

finding that he “criminally possessed alcohol in a public place.” 

He reasons that at best, the evidence relied upon by the 

prosecution raises only an “inference of prior possession,” which 

is insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that 

appellant possessed the alcohol at the scene. Appellant relies 

upon Palaschak for the “long-established” proposition that 

evidence of ingestion of an intoxicant, standing alone, “should not 

be deemed adequate to sustain a possession charge.” (Palaschak, 

supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 1240-1241.) 

We reject appellant’s argument because he misapprehends 

the nature of substantial evidence review. As noted above, our 

task is solely to assess whether the evidence was sufficient to 

support the juvenile court’s finding that appellant was a minor in 

possession of an alcoholic beverage in a public place. (See Bolin, 

supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 331; Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp.

638-639.) 

Here, the evidence included the testimony of the two 

deputies who responded to the scene. The second deputy testified 

that he saw “numerous cases” of what appeared to be an alcoholic 
5

beverage, as well as “empty beer cans and bottles surrounding 

the area.” The deputy also testified to observing a “half empty” 

beer bottle within a “couple [of] feet” in front of appellant and 

appellant’s admission to consuming alcohol. The evidence also 

included the deputy’s body worn cam footage and a still photo 

depicting the scene. 

Even if, as appellant contends, it is theoretically possible 

that he consumed the alcohol at another location at another time, 

this theory is irrelevant because the juvenile court expressly 

considered and rejected it. While the juvenile court opined that 

the questions asked by the deputies “could have been more 

specific,” it found that “the only reasonable conclusion based on 

the circumstances, is that the minor consumed alcohol at or about 

the time of the contact.” (Italics added.) 

Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, 

substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, acting P.J.

We concur:

PERREN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.
Ferdinand D. Inumerable, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Nancy Wechsler, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising 

Deputy Attorney General, and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorney 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.