Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
In Re Rolando S., F061153 (CA. Ct. App. July 21, 2011)

In Re Rolando S., F061153 (CA. Ct. App. July 21, 2011)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6,875|Likes:
Court affirms juvenile's conviction for gaining access to and posting obscene messages through a classmate's Facebook account.
Court affirms juvenile's conviction for gaining access to and posting obscene messages through a classmate's Facebook account.

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Aug 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Filed 7/21/11
 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICTIn re ROLANDO S., a Person Coming Underthe Juvenile Court Law.THE PEOPLE,Plaintiff and Respondent,v.ROLANDO S.,Defendant and Appellant.F061153(Super. Ct. No. 09JQ0153A)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. George L.Orndoff, Judge.Law Office of Jeffrey T. Hammerschmidt, Hammerschmidt Broughton LawCorporation, Jeffrey T. Hammerschmidt, Mark A. Broughton and Laura M. Bragg, forDefendant and Appellant.Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant AttorneyGeneral, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri andBarton Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.-ooOoo-Appellant Rolando S. challenges the juvenile court’s finding that he committedidentity theft under Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a)
(hereafter section
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2530.5(a)) when he accessed the account of S.W. (the victim) on a social media website(Facebook), altered her profile and posted obscene messages and comments purportedlyas the victim from her account in April 2010. Appellant argues his conduct fails tosatisfy the statutory elements of the crime. For the reasons discussed below, we affirmthe judgment.
Appellant was one of several recipients of an unsolicited text message providingthe password to the victim’s email account. Appellant used the victim’s email passwordand account to gain access to her Facebook account, where he posted, in her name,prurient messages on two of her male friends’ pages (walls) and altered her profiledescription in a vulgar manner.
The victim found out about the messages and informedher father, who removed the messages from her account and later called the police.Appellant admitted to the police that he posted the messages from the victim’sFacebook account and altered her profile. A juvenile petition was filed alleging onecount of violating section 530.5, subdivision (a) (willfully obtaining personal identifyinginformation and using it for an unlawful purpose). After a contested jurisdiction hearing,the juvenile court found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had committed thecrime charged and sustained the petition.At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court denied appellant’s motion to reducethe crime from a felony to a misdemeanor, without prejudice. The court noted its
Appellant posted, as the victim, on a male classmate’s wall: “I want to stick yourdick in my mouth and then in my pussy and fuck me really hard and cum on my face.”On another male classmate’s wall he posted: “When we were dating we should have hadsex. I always thought you had a cute dick, maybe we can have sex sometime.” On thevictim’s profile description, appellant posted: “Hey, Face Bookers, [
] I’m [S.], a juniorin high school and college, 17 years young, I want to be a pediatrician but I’m not surewhere I want to go to college yet. I have high standards for myself and plan to meet themall. I love to suck dick.”
3concern with the short time span between this offense and the disposition of a prioroffense -- assault with a deadly weapon (a car), where appellant had driven his car atthree girls with the intent of scaring them. The court found the maximum confinementtime for the offense to be three years, and found the aggregated maximum confinementtime to be three years and three months.
The court ordered appellant committed to theKings County Juvenile Academy Alpha Program for 90 days to a year, and put him onprobation.
Section 530.5(a) states in pertinent part:“Every person who willfully obtains personal identifyinginformation, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, of anotherperson, and uses that information for any unlawful purpose, including toobtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, real property, ormedical information without the consent of that person, is guilty of a publicoffense ….”The offense is a “wobbler,” punishable either as a misdemeanor or a felony. 530.5(a).) Section 530.55, subdivision (b) includes “unique electronic data” as “personalidentifying information.”“[T]o be guilty under section 530.5, subdivision (a), the defendant must (1)willfully obtain personal identifying information of another person, and (2) use theidentifying information for an unlawful purpose without the person’s consent.” (
Peoplev. Tillotson
(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 517, 533.) The facts here are not in dispute.Appellant asserts the facts fail to satisfy the elements of section 530.5(a). We disagree.
Appellant had a prior petition sustained on charges of reckless driving (Veh. Code,§ 23103, subd. (a)), where he had driven his car at three girls in the school parking lot,but stopped abruptly several feet away from them in an attempt to scare them. The juvenile court had disposed of his prior petition approximately two weeks prior toappellant’s current offense.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->