In re J.T.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 10/17/13  In re J.T. CA4/3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL
REPORTS

 

California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b).  This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION THREE

 

 
>

In re J.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,         Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   J.T.,         Defendant and Appellant.	G047624            (Super. Ct. No. DL036715-003)            O P I N I O N

 

                        Appeal
from a judgment of the Superior
Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Orange
County, Jane L. Shade, Temporary Judge.  (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)  Affirmed.

                        Patrick
J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

                        Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and
Heather M. Clark, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

*               
*                *

                        Minor
J.T. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s
finding he committed second degree robbery.  For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

                        A
juvenile court petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) filed February
22, 2012, alleged
minor J.T. (born in July 1994) committed second degree robbery against Hugo G.
on October 5, 2011.  At trial in October 2012, Hugo G. testified
that around 6:00 p.m. on
a rainy October 5, 2011,
he exited a bus near First and Bristol Streets in Santa Ana and walked east.  He noticed two men walking behind him.  After a few blocks, the men came up alongside
him and the younger of the two said, “Give me your stuff.”  Hugo ignored him, but the younger man pulled
on the gold chain Hugo wore around his neck. 
The clasp broke as they struggled over the chain.  The assailant called to his companion, “Sam,
help me out.”  “Sam” punched Hugo in the
eye, and Hugo released his grasp on the chain. 
The men fled with the broken chain. 
At some point during the incident, the younger man removed his gray
sweatshirt.  Hugo called 911 but did not
provide a description of his assailants. 
Police officers responded to the scene. 
A few months later, an officer showed Hugo several sets of photos.  He identified minor’s photo as “look[ing]
similar” to the younger man although he “was not too sure.”  He could not identify minor in court.

                        Detective
Adrian Silva testified that in February 2012 he compiled a six-pack
photographic lineup and showed it to Hugo. 
Hugo circled minor’s picture as looking “similar” to the robber.  The next day, Silva arrested minor and
interviewed him at the police station. 
Silva asked about the October 5 incident, and minor stated he and a
friend named Sam were on the same bus as Hugo, and hatched a plan to steal his
chain.  Minor had difficulty seizing the
chain because Hugo grabbed his arm and collar. 
Minor admitted he abandoned his torn sweatshirt at the scene.  Sam eventually sold the chain for several
hundred dollars at a pawnshop, but did not share the proceeds with minor.

                        The
juvenile court denied minor’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 701.1 [juvenile court shall order the petition
dismissed at close of petitioner’s case if upon weighing the evidence court
finds minor is not a person described by Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602]) and
found the allegations of the petition true beyond a reasonable doubt.  The court continued minor as a ward of the
court on supervised probation and directed him to serve 245 days in custody,
with credit for time served.href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]  The
court directed him to pay a restitution fine of $100 and victim restitution as
set by the probation department.

II

Discussion

                        Minor
argues the People failed to prove the truth of the allegation beyond a
reasonable doubt:  “[T]he victim was
unable to identify [minor] in court at the time of trial.  [Hugo’s] previous identification, based upon
the photo lineup, was limited to his conclusion that the person selected was
‘similar’ to the individual with whom he had struggled over the necklace.  Additionally, while there was a sweatshirt at
the scene which the victim stated belonged to his assailant, there was no
evidence that the minor ever owned such a sweatshirt.  While appellant’s admission[s] to the
investigating officer may establish his presence at the scene they do not
establish beyond a reasonable doubt his involvement in the crime.  The People failed to prove the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt because the victim was unable to identify appellant to a
degree warranting confidence in his identification as a responsible party.”

                        The
substantial evidence rule
governs our review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the name="SR;2158">evidence supporting
the juvenile court’s finding minor committed robbery.  (In re Andrew I. (1991) 230
Cal.App.3d 572, 577.)  We review the
entire record in the light most favorable to the order “‘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 minor guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” 
( Ibid.)  name="sp_999_4">The fact the circumstances could be
reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal of the
judgment.  (People v. Bean (1988)
46 Cal.3d 919, 932-933.)  Consequently,
an appellant “bears an enormous burden” when challenging the name="SR;2386">sufficiency of
the evidence.  (People v. Sanchez (2003) 113
Cal.App.4th 325, 330.)

                        Here,
Hugo’s testimony established he was the victim of a second degree robbery.  (Pen. Code, §§ 211 [defining
robbery as the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of
another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will,
accomplished by means of force or fear]; 212.5, subd. (c) [describing degrees
of robbery].)  Hugo’s pretrial
identification of minor’s photograph as looking “similar” to one of the
assailants, and minor’s admissions to Detective Silva, constituted ample
evidence to identify minor as the person who robbed Hugo on October 5,
2011.  Minor concedes the name="SR;3121">corpusname="SR;3122"> delicti rule does not require evidence of hisname="SR;3131"> identity.  (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39
Cal.4th 641, 721; People v.
Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1165, 1181 [rule requires evidence independent of defendant’s statements of every
physical act constituting an element of an offense; rule exists to prevent
conviction for a nonexistent crime based solely on a person’s untested
confession].)  Substantial evidence
supports the juvenile court’s finding the minor committed robbery.

III

Disposition

                        The judgment is
affirmed.

 

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                    ARONSON,
J.

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

O’LEARY, P. J.

 

 

 

BEDSWORTH, J.