In re Charles G., A149593M

In December 2015 a juvenile petition charged Charles with: (1) possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen. Code § 29610), (2) carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code § 25400(a)(2)), and (3) resisting/obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code § 148(a)(1)).
At a contested jurisdictional hearing the juvenile court sustained all counts; the firearm felonies were later reduced to misdemeanors and Charles was committed to a youth facility. He appealed.
Charles argued § 29610 (minor possession) preempts § 25400(a)(2) (carrying a concealed firearm) and that there was insufficient evidence for the § 148 adjudication because he did not know an officer sought to detain him.
Facts: officers were alerted to burglary suspects; officers saw two males (one later identified as Charles) near a shopping center across from the police station; a green backpack containing a .22 revolver was recovered behind a dumpster; officers observed Charles jump a fence after seeing an officer in a police car; other officers detained the companion.
The juvenile court found Charles violated both firearm statutes and § 148. The Court of Appeal affirmed the firearm findings but reversed the § 148 finding and remanded for disposition consistent with that reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 29610 (minor possession) preempts § 25400(a)(2) (carrying concealed firearm)	People: statutes address similar conduct; preemption not warranted because punishments differ and both can apply	Charles: § 29610 is the special statute and preempts the more general § 25400(a)(2) when applied to minors	No preemption: statutes prohibit different conduct (possession vs. carrying+concealment); both may apply and Legislature did not clearly intend preclusion
Whether substantial evidence supports a § 148(a)(1) conviction for willfully resisting/delaying/obstructing an officer	People: Charles’s flight, abandonment of backpack, and jumping the fence after seeing a uniformed officer demonstrate he knew officers sought to detain him	Charles: no evidence officer took direct action to detain him (no verbal command, lights, pursuit); his actions are equally consistent with avoiding detection, not resisting detention	Reversed as to § 148: insufficient evidence that Charles knew an officer sought to detain him, so § 148 adjudication cannot stand

In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (general rule on independent review of statutory interpretation)
People v. Murphy, 52 Cal.4th 81 (rule on special-statute preemption under Williamson)
In re Williamson, 43 Cal.2d 651 (origin of Williamson rule on special vs. general statutes)
People v. Jones, 54 Cal.4th 350 (discussing possession vs. carrying and double convictions)
People v. Reed, 38 Cal.4th 1224 (approving convictions for possession and carrying based on same conduct)
In re Muhammad C., 95 Cal.App.4th 1325 (example where direct officer commands supported § 148 conviction)
People v. Hurtado, 47 Cal.App.4th 805 (defining "possession" for firearms)