Filed 7/28/17 In re T.N. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



In re T.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.N.,

Defendant and Appellant.
D071309


(Super. Ct. No. J239009)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis and Roderick W. Shelton, Judges. Affirmed.
Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I
INTRODUCTION
Minor appeals from a juvenile court judgment finding true allegations he committed two robberies while personally using a deadly or dangerous weapon. He contends we must reverse the judgment because there was insufficient evidence to support the court's findings due to discrepancies in the victim's prehearing statements and hearing testimony describing the robber with the gun.
We conclude the evidence, while inconsistent in some respects, is nonetheless sufficient to support the court's findings. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.
II
BACKGROUND
A
Late one evening, the victim and his friend were walking along a street when a group of four African-American males approached from across the street. The group cornered the victim and his friend against a fence and told them to get on the ground. One of the men, who wore camouflage shorts, pointed a gun in the victim's face and stated, "Empty your pockets now."
The victim and his friend got down on the ground, where the group patted them down and emptied their pockets. The victim's watch and his friend's cell phone were taken. One of the men then instructed the victim and his friend to get up. The men shook hands with the victim and his friend and said something along the lines of, "This is what happens when you're out at night." The men then continued on their way.
One of the men returned and demanded the victim's cell phone. The victim handed him the phone. However, as the man walked away, the victim said he needed the phone for work and the man threw the phone back to the victim. The victim and his friend walked a short distance to get away from the men, then the victim's friend used the victim's cell phone to call police.
Two police officers responded to a dispatch of a robbery in progress. The dispatch indicated the suspects were four African-American juveniles, one of whom wore a dark blue hoody and camouflage shorts. The dispatch also indicated the suspect with the gun was a African-American male with a shaved head.
The officers found and detained five individuals two or three blocks away from where the robbery occurred. Two of the individuals, both African-American males, were trailing about 15 yards behind the other three. Minor was one of the two trailing individuals. He was wearing a dark blue hoody and camouflage shorts. He also had a close haircut, which one of the officers believed could be considered a shaved head. A cell phone case belonging to the victim's friend was found on the ground near Minor.
One of the officers conducted a pat-down search of Minor and found what appeared to be a firearm in Minor's waistband. The gun was heavy, metal, and appeared to be real, but was later determined to be a replica airsoft gun. None of the other individuals detained with Minor possessed any weapons or any personal property belonging to the victim or his friend. According to the officer who conducted a curbside lineup of all five individuals, the victim identified the person wearing the camouflage shorts, who was Minor, as the person who had the gun during the robberies.
The officers arrested Minor. After being provided with the advisements required by Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, Minor stated he witnessed the robbery, but was not involved. He stated he carried the gun for protection. He initially stated the person who committed the robbery had not used a gun, but he later recanted and was indecisive on this point.
B
The victim, who was admittedly anxious about the incident and nervous about testifying, consistently stated the man with the gun was wearing camouflage shorts; however, he varied in his description of the man's hair and the man's other clothing. He initially testified one of the men had an "afro kind of like hair and no shirt, cargo—not cargo, camo shorts. And the other, I believe, had a hoody. He was more bald and I believe he was wearing pants, but I'm not completely sure on that." He then testified he was only able to identify one man at the curbside lineup. He believed the man was bald and wore a hoody and he did not know whether it was the man who used the firearm. However, when asked whether he told the officer who conducted the curbside lineup that the man with the gun was the person wearing the hoody and camouflage shorts, he acknowledged he did tell the officer that. He went on to testify the person with the hoody and the camouflage shorts was the man with the gun, emphasizing he clearly remembered the camouflage shorts.
On cross-examination, when confronted with his earlier testimony that the man holding the gun was bald, the victim replied, "[I] may have said that. I apologize. I was incorrect. ... I believe he had a afro styled hair." The victim also admitted he spoke with a defense investigator over the phone before the hearing and told the investigator the man holding the gun was bald, but he had since remembered the man had an afro. He explained on redirect he had just awakened when the defense investigator called and was still groggy. He confirmed the man with the gun had an afro, but not a huge afro. He also confirmed the man wore camouflage shorts.
When asked if he saw the man with the gun in the courtroom, the victim said he did not remember the man's face, but he believed Minor was the man because of Minor's hair, which he remembered. When shown a photograph of Minor taken at the police station after Minor's arrest, he said the Minor's camouflage shorts were the same as the shorts worn by the man with the gun. He also recognized Minor's hair, face, and facial expression.
III
DISCUSSION
"Our review of [Minor's] substantial evidence claim is governed by the same standard applicable to adult criminal cases. [Citation.] 'In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.]' [Citation.] ' "[O]ur role on appeal is a limited one." [Citation.] Under the substantial evidence rule, we must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] Thus, if the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal of the judgment.' " (In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026.)
Here, the evidence, viewed in the required light, shows the victim was robbed by four African-American males, one of whom had a gun. The male with the gun had a short afro and wore camouflage shorts. On the night of the robbery, Minor had a short afro, wore camouflage shorts, and carried a heavy, metal replica firearm. Minor admitted being at the scene of the robbery when it occurred and police officers found him a few blocks away near a discarded cell phone case from the cell phone the robbers took from the victim's friend. At a subsequent curbside lineup, the victim identified the person in the camouflage shorts, who was Minor, as the male with the gun. At the hearing, the victim confirmed Minor's hair and the camouflage shorts Minor was wearing on the night of the robbery matched the hair and shorts of the male with a gun.
Although there were inconsistencies in the victim's statements about the hair and clothing of the male with a gun, "under the principles governing review for the existence of substantial evidence, the testimony of a witness is ordinarily sufficient to uphold a judgment 'even if it is contradicted by other evidence, inconsistent or false as to other portions. [Citations.]' [Citation.] The circumstances in which an appellate court may properly decline to credit testimony are exceptional and rare. [Citation.] ' "Testimony may be rejected only when it is inherently improbable or incredible, i.e., ' "unbelievable per se," ' physically impossible or ' "wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds." ' " [Citation.]' [Citations.] Those circumstances are not present here." (People v. White (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 305, 319, fn. 14.) Accordingly, Minor has not established there was insufficient evidence to support the court's findings.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


MCCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:



HUFFMAN, J.



IRION, J.