In re Brandon G.
Filed 5/22/06 In re Brandon G. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re BRANDON G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON G., Defendant and Appellant. | G035486 (Super. Ct. No. DL016942) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard E. Behn, Judge. Affirmed.
Lauren E. Eskenazi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Kristen K. Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
Brandon G. appeals from the judgment after the juvenile court sustained a petition charging him with (1) second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code sections 211 and 212.5, subdivision (c) and (2) misdemeanor battery in violation of Penal Code section 242. Brandon contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by excluding his grandmother's testimony that she had rented a trailer to the victim's brother and was in the process of evicting the brother around the time of the charged crimes. Brandon argues the exclusion of his grandmother's testimony violated his constitutional rights to compulsory process and to present a defense because her testimony was relevant to show the victim's motivation to falsely implicate Brandon in the charged crimes out of revenge for his brother's eviction.
We affirm. Evidence was not presented showing that either the victim or the victim's brother were aware at the time the victim reported Brandon's charged crimes that the victim's brother was going to be evicted. Thus, the inference Brandon sought to be drawn from his grandmother's testimony--that the victim falsely implicated Brandon in retaliation for his brother's eviction--is purely speculative. The juvenile court therefore did not abuse its discretion by excluding the grandmother's testimony as irrelevant, and Brandon's constitutional rights were not violated.
FACTS[1]
Rodrigo Gutierrez[2] testified that at 10:00 p.m. on February 18, 2005, he was riding his bicycle when a white car pulled up next to him; Brandon got out of the car. Brandon[3] said to Gutierrez, â€
