In re Joe L.

Filed 3/21/06 In re Joe L. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert Totten, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Patricia Winters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and Alene M. Games, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging minor Joe L. committed the crime of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. The court declared the offense a felony and determined that minor's maximum confinement time was six years six months. The court ordered minor into a camp community placement for six months.

Minor appeals on the grounds that: (1) Failure to administer Miranda warnings[1] created an unrebuttable presumption of compulsion, barring admission of his statement; (2) there was insufficient evidence of intent to sustain a true finding on the robbery charge; and (3) the trial court miscalculated the maximum term of confinement.

FACTS

I. Prosecution Evidence

On December 10, 2004, Henry M. was in line in the dining area at Mid Valley Youth Center, where he had been placed after a probation violation. Minor approached Henry and grabbed him from behind. As minor held Henry by the neck with his right arm and covered Henry's mouth with his left hand, Victor I. and Thomas F. struck Henry in the face and chest. Thomas took Henry's Gameboy and two games. Henry managed to call out to a counselor, Vanessa Perez. Perez turned and looked at the boys and told them to release Henry. The three assailants ran away. Henry asked the three boys to give back his property, but each said he did not have it. Police were called.

Minor told Officer Kathleen Owens that the three boys had been horseplaying. Officer Owens did not advise minor of his Miranda rights. Another officer found a Gameboy game in Thomas's pocket. Henry identified the game as his. The police eventually returned all of Henry's property to him.

II. Defense Evidence

Minor said he and the others were horseplaying with Henry, as they often did. He, Victor, and Thomas did not plan to take Henry's property, and minor personally did not intend to take it. Thomas snatched the game, and minor did not even see it happen. Henry was not his enemy and he had no reason to take his property. Minor did not hit Henry, and he grabbed him only by the shoulders. The other boys made punching motions but did not punch Henry.

DISCUSSION

I. Failure to Administer Miranda Warnings

A. Minor's Argument

Referring to minor's statement to Officer Owens that â€