Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JW066894
Pollak, J.
S.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order in proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The juvenile’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting our independent review of the record. The minor was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
Background
On November 27, 2006, a petition was filed alleging that 17-year-old S.C. had loitered in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution (Pen. Code, § 653.22, subd. (a)), and that she falsely identified herself to the police (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a).) S.C. denied the allegations. At the detention hearing the juvenile court found that a prima facie case existed and ordered her detained.
According to the police report quoted in the probation officer’s dispositional report, on the day S.C. was arrested, San Francisco Police Officer Rolovich “was working undercover vice crimes investigations . . . regarding prostitution activity in that area. As she was driving on Polk St. to Bush[, s]he observed [S.C.] walking [and] slowly waving, smiling and beckoning at male occupied vehicles as they drove by her. The officer parked her vehicle to observe [S.C.’s] actions. [S.C.] stood on the corner of Polk and Bush Street for fifteen minutes just waving at male occupied vehicles as they drove by . . . . [The officer] saw a Latin male walk up to [S.C.] at the corner of Bush and Polk, they had a short conversation. Then they both walked together [eastbound] on Bush St. They both walked by the officer’s vehicle. The officer exited the vehicle and approached [S.C.], identified herself as a police officer. The Latin male never stopped . . . . [The officer] asked [S.C.] if she had any I.D., and she had none. The officer then placed [S.C.] under arrest. She asked [S.C.] for her date of birth and [S.C.] stated 09-24-89. She asked [S.C.] how old she was and she said, ‘Twenty.’ [S.C.] then said her name was Brandi M[.] and her date of birth was 07-24-86. The officer asked [S.C.] where she was from and where were her parents. [S.C.] refused to give further information.” S.C.’s father is incarcerated and she does not know the whereabouts of her mother.
At the jurisdictional hearing, the arresting officer testified consistently with the police report about the events surrounding the arrest. She also testified that she had worked in the vice crimes division for “almost 23 years, ” and that she had arrested a “couple thousand” individuals for loitering with the intent to commit prostitution. She stated that the area she was patrolling is known for a high level of prostitution. S.C. initially attracted her attention because she was standing on the street late at night when all the businesses were closed. When the officer arrested S.C., S.C. told her that her mother was dead, and that after she mirandized S.C., the minor volunteered that “I don’t have a pimp and I work for myself.” The probation officer testified that the minor had provided “S[.]C[.]” as her true name when she was interviewed after being arrested, although she was mirandized using the name she had provided the police at the time of the arrest, “Brandi M[.]”
The sister of S.C.’s grandfather testified at the jurisdictional hearing, and identified the minor as “S[.]C[.]” She said that she had last spoken with S.C. in January 2006 and that S.C. had not told her that she was in the process of changing her name, nor had she ever heard S.C. refer to herself as “Brandi M[.]”
S.C. also testified at the jurisdictional hearing. She stated that her legal name is “S[.]C[.], ” but that she was “having my name changed as soon as possible.” She stated that “I left . . . my Aunt Sandra, my legal guardian, I left her house more than a year and a half ago. Since I left her house I have not used my name. Although I also have not contacted any of my family so they didn’t know that. But the fact is that I don’t go by that name and I haven’t gone by that name.” Instead, she had gone by “Brandi M[.]” “and that’s what I am looking to change it legally to.” She stated that she was standing on the street that night because “I was going to meet a friend of my fiancé’s that I haven’t met yet. Because me and my fiancé had just gotten engaged, and he felt that it would be appropriate for me to meet all of his friends. Close friends and relatives. She stated that she was “headed up the hill . . . to my fiancé’s friend’s house to meet him. Not inside the house but outside. . . . On Bush Street in between the middle of the top of the hill is what I was informed. I’ve never been to his house before so I don’t know. But he was supposed to be waiting outside his house for me. My fiancé was going to meet us there.” S.C. denied telling the police officer that her mother was dead, and that there was a “group of Latin males” present near the time she was arrested.” She also denied waving at passing cars, and that she was loitering with the intent to prostitute. She stated that she used the name “Brandi M[.]” because “that is the name that I use and have been using for the past year and a half or like year and nine months or eight months, however long it’s been since I left my aunt’s house.” When asked about the birthdate she provided at the time of arrest, S.C. stated that she gave the correct date and that “[i]f [the officer] got it confused that’s not my problem, that is her fault.”
The juvenile court sustained the petition. On January 3, 2007, the court made its dispositional findings that the two counts were misdemeanors, that placing S.C. with her parents would be detrimental, and declared S.C. a ward of the court. She was placed on probation with certain conditions, including that she stay away from the area where she was arrested. She was committed to the probation department for an out of home placement.
S.C. timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the jurisdictional findings.
Discussion
We review the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order. (See, e.g., In re Arcenio V. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 613, 615.) Where there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s decision, we must affirm. (Id. at pp. 615-616.)
“[A]ny person who is under the age of 18 years when he or she violates any law of this state . . . is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a).) “A peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor: (a) Who is under the age of 18 years when such officer has reasonable cause for believing that such minor is a person described in Section . . . 602 . . . .” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 625.)
Penal Code section 653.22, subdivision (a) provides that “It is unlawful for any person to loiter in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution. This intent is evidenced by acting in a manner and under circumstances which openly demonstrate the purpose of inducing, enticing, or soliciting prostitution . . . .” The arresting officer’s experience; her testimony that the area was one known for a high level of prostitution; the fact that S.C. was smiling and waving at cars driven by men at 3:30 a.m.; and the fact that she began to walk away with a single man after a brief conversation provided reasonable cause for the officer to believe that S.C. was loitering with the intent to commit prostitution. S.C.’s later admission that she did not have a pimp but was working for herself bolstered this belief and provided substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding that S.C. had violated the statute.
Penal Code section 148.9, subdivision (a) provides, “Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace officer . . . upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty of a misdemeanor.” The section proscribes providing a false name and providing a false birthdate. (In re Ivan J. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 27.) The officer’s testimony provided substantial evidence that S.C. provided both a false name and a false birthdate.
The fact that S.C.’s testimony contradicted that of the police officer does not undermine this conclusion. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court ‘must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] ‘To warrant rejection of a witness’ testimony that has been believed by the trier of fact, there must exist either a physical impossibility that it is true, or its falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions. [Citation.] Conflicts and even testimony subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify a reversal, for it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of a witness.’ ” (In re Cheri T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1404.)
S.C. was at all times represented by competent counsel. On independent review of the record, we find that the juvenile court committed no error in making its jurisdictional order.
Disposition
The jurisdictional order is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J., Parrilli, J.