Filed 11/1/18 In re Crystal C. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Bradley Erdosi, Judge. Affirmed.

Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Introduction

We appointed counsel to represent defendant Crystal C. (the minor) on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting forth the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting that we independently review the entire record. We provided the minor 30 days to file written argument on her own behalf; no supplemental response has been received.

We have examined the entire record and appointed appellate counsel’s Wende/Anders brief; we find no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

Background

At about 7:30 p.m. on December 31, 2017, a Circle K store clerk observed the minor leaving the store with two 18-packs of Modelo beer without having paid for them. The clerk pursued the minor out of the store. A male appeared from the side and punched the clerk in the mouth. The male caught up with the minor; the minor handed the male one of the cases of beer, and the two ran off together.

The police responded to the Circle K, and reviewed the store video surveillance footage with the clerk. They saw a female leaving the store with a case of beer in each hand. The female was heavyset, had dark hair, and was wearing a grey sweatshirt and dark pants. They also saw a heavyset, mustachioed male standing outside the Circle K wearing a black jacket, capri-length pants, and a baseball cap; the clerk identified him as the man who had hit him in the mouth as he pursued the minor.

Anaheim Police Officer Kevin Sanchez saw the minor in a nearby park. He detained her due to her resemblance to the female in the Circle K video. After more officers arrived, Sanchez found an unopened case of Modelo beer 40 to 50 feet from the spot at which he had detained the minor. The clerk identified the minor at an in-field show-up later that evening, and again during the court proceedings.

The minor was arrested and transported to the police station where Anaheim Police Officer Samuel Silva advised her of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. The minor was then transported by Silva to juvenile hall where she was questioned by Officer Ruben Guzman. The minor admitted entering the Circle K to get beer at the behest of a friend’s boyfriend, who waited outside as a lookout. The minor admitted stealing the beer. The minor saw the lookout punch the clerk outside the store. The minor and the lookout then took off towards the park at which she was arrested.

A juvenile delinquency petition subsequent was filed against the minor, alleging one count of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 215, subd. (c).) (The minor’s other delinquency cases are not at issue in this appeal.) The juvenile court found the allegations of the petition to be true and found that the minor came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The court then committed the minor to juvenile hall or another appropriate facility for 167 days, with credit for 47 days served. The minor was ordered to serve the remaining 120 days in the Sobriety Through Education and Prevention program at the Youth Guidance Center.

Analysis of Potential Issues

The juvenile court properly found true the allegation that the minor had committed a robbery. There was substantial evidence that the minor committed a theft coupled with the use of force or fear during the escape. (People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 26.) There was also substantial evidence of an uncharged conspiracy to commit the crime between the minor and her friend’s boyfriend, who acted as lookout and punched the Circle K clerk when the clerk attempted to stop the minor from stealing the beer, making the minor liable under either a conspiracy or aiding and abetting theory. (People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 249-250; People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1128.)

Guzman testified that the minor told him her friend’s boyfriend had said, “Let’s get some brew,” and had told the minor to go into the Circle K to get the beer. The juvenile court did not err in overruling the minor’s hearsay objection to this testimony, as statements made by coconspirators are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, § 1223; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1108.)

The minor sought to exclude her statements to Guzman on the ground they were obtained in violation of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436. The juvenile court properly admitted those statements, having found that the minor was properly read her rights, and freely and voluntarily waived them.

During the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court was made aware that a witness was observed speaking to another witness in the courthouse hallway. The court questioned the witness, and found that the witnesses had not discussed anything regarding the proceedings. This finding was amply supported by the witness’s responses to the court’s questioning.

The Circle K clerk initially testified without the assistance of an interpreter. Because of the witness’s difficulty in understanding the questions and formulating coherent answers, the court and counsel agreed to obtain the services of an interpreter. The juvenile court struck the uninterpreted testimony and allowed counsel to begin the questioning anew, so no prejudice was suffered.

The audio and transcripts of the clerk’s 911 call were properly admitted into evidence as a spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, § 1240; People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 468.)

The juvenile court did not err in denying the minor’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1. “[T]he standard for review of the juvenile court’s denial of a motion to dismiss is whether there is substantial evidence to support the offense charged in the petition. [Citation.] In applying the substantial evidence rule, we must ‘assume in favor of [the court’s] order the existence of every fact from which the [court] could have reasonably deduced from the evidence whether the offense charged was committed and if it was perpetrated by the person or persons accused of the offense. [Citations.] Accordingly, we may not set aside the trial court’s denial of the motion on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence unless it clearly appears that upon no hypothesis whatsoever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached by the court below.’” (In re Man J. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 475, 482.) As noted ante, there was substantial evidence that the minor committed a theft through the use of force or fear, as part of an uncharged conspiracy with her friend’s boyfriend, or as an aider and abettor.

Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented the minor in this appeal.

Disposition

The order is affirmed.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

ARONSON, J.