In re Reginald B.
Filed 5/5/06 In re Reginald B. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
| In re REGINALD B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REGINALD B., Defendant and Appellant. |
C050006
(Super. Ct. No. J60806)
|
Following a contested hearing, the San Joaquin County Juvenile Court found that minor Reginald B. was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed the offenses of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)), robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property, to wit, the vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). The court declared all four offenses to be felonies and ruled that the statutory maximum period of physical confinement was nine years. The minor was continued a ward of the court under the usual rules of probation and was committed to camp for 180 days. He was ordered to pay a $100 restitution fine (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (b)(1)) plus a $10 penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (a)).
On appeal, the minor contends (1) the carjacking adjudication must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence that the subject truck was taken from the victim's immediate presence; (2) the receiving stolen property adjudication must be reversed because convictions for taking and receiving the same truck are impermissible (the People concede the point); (3) the case must be remanded to the juvenile court to consider whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant a lesser maximum term of physical confinement; and (4) the $10 penalty assessment on the restitution fine must be stricken (the People concede this point as well). We shall modify the judgment.
Facts
On April 28, 2005, Antonio Garcia was driving a pickup truck in Stockton. Around 8:30 p.m., he parked the truck in front of a telephone booth on a street corner. He went to the booth and called his girlfriend. The minor and coparticipant Korrey M. walked up to Garcia.
With the minor at his side, Korrey told Garcia to give him his wallet. Garcia showed Korrey the wallet and said that he did not have anything. Korrey took the wallet and saw that Garcia had nothing. Korrey returned the wallet and asked Garcia what he had in his pocket and in his hands. Korrey took some keys from Garcia, asked if they were keys to the truck, and asked the minor if he wanted to drive. Korrey gave the keys to the minor.
The minor looked in the truck and told Korrey that there was nothing in the truck. In fact, the truck contained a stereo system. Korrey told Garcia that he had a gun. Within two minutes after Korrey took the keys, the minor drove the truck away.
The truck was approximately 18 feet from Garcia when the minor drove away. There was a sidewalk and a grassy area between the telephone booth and the parked truck.
Approximately five hours later, a Stockton resident heard a loud scrape in front of his house. He went outside and saw the minor and Korrey in the truck, which had two flat tires and a damaged frame. When police officers arrived, they saw the minor and Korrey standing over a gray box about 10 feet from the truck. The box contained subwoofer speakers. The undercarriage of the truck had fallen down and was resting on the pavement.
Discussion
I
The minor contends the carjacking adjudication must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence that the truck was taken from Garcia's immediate presence. We disagree.
â€
