In re Charles G., A149593

In Aug 2016 a juvenile court sustained allegations against Charles G. for (1) possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen. Code § 29610), (2) carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code § 25400(a)(2)), and (3) resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer (Pen. Code § 148(a)(1)); the firearm counts were later reduced to misdemeanors.
Facts: officers were alerted after a reported residential burglary; two males (one later identified as Charles) were seen near a shopping center across from the police station. A green backpack containing a .22 revolver was recovered behind a dumpster. Charles was observed entering a restaurant, later without the backpack, and was seen jumping a fence when Officer Berkley drove into the adjacent parking area. Other officers detained the companion.
Juvenile court found Charles committed all three offenses and committed him to a youth facility for six months. Charles appealed.
On appeal Charles argued: (a) § 29610 (minor possession) preempts general concealed-carry statute § 25400(a)(2); and (b) insufficient evidence supported the § 148 conviction because he did not know officers sought to detain him.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the firearm findings (rejecting preemption) but reversed the § 148 adjudication for lack of substantial evidence that Charles knew officers were attempting to detain him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Penal Code § 29610 (minor possession) preempts § 25400(a)(2) (carrying a concealed firearm)	Both statutes address the same conduct; but § 29610 does not prescribe lesser punishment so preemption fails	§ 29610 is the more specific statute and thus should preclude charging under the more general § 25400(a)(2)	No preemption: statutes target different conduct (possession v. carrying/concealment); both convictions may stand
Whether substantial evidence supports conviction under § 148(a)(1) (willfully resisting/delaying/obstructing an officer)	Flight, abandonment of backpack with a gun, and jumping a fence upon seeing uniformed Officer Berkley show knowledge and willful evasion of detention	Charles did not know officers were attempting to detain him; no commands, pursuit, lights, or other direct police action to indicate detention	Reversed as to § 148: insufficient evidence that Charles knew or reasonably should have known Berkley sought to detain him

In re Williamson, 43 Cal.2d 651 (rule that a special statute may preclude prosecution under a general statute when violation of the special statute will necessarily or commonly result in violation of the general statute)
People v. Murphy, 52 Cal.4th 81 (applying Williamson special-statute preemption analysis)
People v. Jones, 54 Cal.4th 350 (discussing when possession and carrying can be treated as same act for sentencing limits)
People v. Reed, 38 Cal.4th 1224 (upholding multiple weapons convictions from same conduct)
People v. Harrison, 1 Cal.App.3d 115 (distinguishing crimes of possession and carrying and their distinct purposes)
In re M.G., 228 Cal.App.4th 1268 (discussed as inapposite precedent concerning §§ 29610 and 25400)
In re Muhammed C., 95 Cal.App.4th 1325 (example where direct police command/supporting facts sustained § 148 conviction)
People v. Hurtado, 47 Cal.App.4th 805 (definition of possession and its scope)