In re Jose X.
Filed 6/21/12 In re Jose X. CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
In re JOSE
X., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B235471
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSE X.,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. TJ19395)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
Elana
Goldstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Michael C.
Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
>
The
juvenile court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section
602, finding true the felony charge that minor Jose X. (Appellant) committed
the crime of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. The court declared Appellant to be a ward of
the court and ordered him to be placed at home on probation. Appellant appeals from the
adjudication/disposition order, contending that there was insufficient evidence
to sustain the petition. We disagree and
affirm.
BACKGROUND
On July 19, 2011, a petition was filed alleging
that 14-year-old Appellant committed the crime of
Penal Code section 211. Appellant denied
the petition, and a contested adjudication hearing was held.
Prosecution Case
At the
hearing, the victim, Jose Galindo, testified about the robbery, which occurred
shortly before midnight on July 15, 2011. Galindo was using his cellular telephone as
he rode his bicycle on the sidewalk on East Vernon
Avenue in Los Angeles. Someone hit Galindo and he fell off of his
bicycle. Galindo suffered swelling and a
loose tooth. While he was on the ground,
Galindo saw a group of four or five people around him, which included one
female. The members of the group
approached Galindo and took his phone, his bicycle and his backpack. Then they ran away in different
directions. On the day of the incident
and at the adjudication hearing,
Galindo was unable to identify Appellant as one of the persons who hit him or
took his property. Galindo testified
that he “didn’t manage to take a look at the people.â€
Los Angeles Police Department
Officer Jesus Contreras also testified at the adjudication hearing. He responded to a call about the robbery,
which was made from a liquor store on East Vernon
Avenue.
When Officer Contreras and his partner arrived at the scene, they spoke
with Galindo and then searched for suspects.
The officers looked behind 212 East Vernon Avenue, a residence located
one or two houses away from the liquor store, because Galindo told them that he
had seen a few of the suspects run to the rear of that residence. Appellant was there. The officers brought Appellant to the front
of the residence. Upon seeing Galindo,
Appellant said: “‘My homey hit
him.’ ‘I just took his bike and his
backpack.’†When asked where the bicycle
and backpack were, Appellant told Officer Contreras that the items were behind
the residence where the officers had located him. Officer Contreras recovered the bicycle and
backpack and returned them to Galindo.
Defense Case
Appellant
testified at the hearing and denied that he was involved in the robbery. He acknowledged that he told the officers
where to find the bicycle and backpack.
He could not recall whether he made the statement that Officer Contreras
attributed to him: “‘My homey hit
him.’ ‘I just took his bike and his
backpack.’â€
Appellant
stated that he was “hanging out†with friends and his brother in the backyard
of 212 East Vernon Avenue
when he saw Galindo ride by on a bicycle.
Then he saw a crowd of people gathered about three or four houses
away. Appellant testified that he did
not see anyone hit Galindo. Appellant
“assumed†that someone hit Galindo because appellant saw Galindo running without
his bicycle. Then two people brought
Galindo’s property to the house Appellant was visiting.
A male Appellant knew as “Chinoâ€
brought the bicycle into the backyard. A
female Appellant knew as “Loca†threw the backpack over the gate. Chino
told Appellant to pick up the backpack and bring it into the backyard. Appellant complied. Chino
and Loca left the residence and boarded a bus.
At the hearing, Appellant referred to Chino
and Loca as his “friends,†but stated that he had just met them the same day as
the incident. According to Appellant,
the police arrived at the residence about 15 minutes after Appellant carried
the backpack into the backyard.
Appellant did not tell the police that Chino and Loca were involved in
the incident.
The juvenile court sustained the
petition, declared Appellant to be a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 602, and ordered him to be placed at home on
probation.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the juvenile
court erred in sustaining the petition because there is insufficient evidence
he committed a robbery or aided and
abetted a robbery. We disagree.
“In assessing a claim of
insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court’s task is to review the whole
record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it
discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible,
and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
[Citation.] The federal standard
of review is to the same effect: Under
principles of federal due process, review for sufficiency of evidence entails
not the determination whether the reviewing court itself believes the evidence
at trial establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but, instead, 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.] The standard of review is the same in cases
in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.]
‘“Although it is the duty of the [trier of fact] to acquit a defendant
if it finds the circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations,
one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the
[trier of fact], not the appellate court[,] which must be convinced of the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
‘“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 a reversal of the
judgment.â€â€™ [Citations.]â€â€™ [Citation.]â€
(People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20
Cal.4th at 1, 11.)
Penal Code section 211 defines
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.â€
The “taking element of robbery†includes “two necessary elements: caption or gaining possession of the victim’s
property, and asportation or carrying away the loot.†(People
v. Lopez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1051, 1056.)
The taking is felonious if the defendant had the intent to “deprive the
owner permanently of his or her property.â€
(People v. Bacon (2010) 50
Cal.4th 1082, 1117.)
A “robbery remains in progress
until the perpetrator has reached a place of temporary safety.†(People
v. Flynn (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 766, 772.)
“A perpetrator has reached a place of temporary safety with the property
if he or she has successfully escaped from the scene, is no longer being
pursued, and has unchallenged possession of the property.†(CALCRIM No. 1603, as cited by Appellant
below and on appeal.) “Whether a
defendant has reached a place of temporary safety is a question of fact for the
[trier of fact],†which is determined based on the application of an objective
standard. (People v. Johnson (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 552, 559.)
At the adjudication hearing, the
prosecution explained that its theory of the case is that Appellant aided and
abetted the robbery by carrying away the property to a place of temporary
safety. “[I]n order to be held liable as
an aider and abettor, the requisite intent to aid and abet [the robbery] must
be formed before or during such carrying away of the loot to a place of
temporary safety.†(People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1161, italics omitted.)
Under either the prosecution or
defense version of events, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
decision to sustain the petition. The
prosecution presented evidence demonstrating:
Members of a group of four or five individuals hit Galindo and took his
property. Galindo told police officers
that he saw a few of the suspects run behind a residence located at 212 East
Vernon Avenue. The officers searched the
location and found Appellant there. When
the officers walked Appellant to the front of the residence and Appellant saw
Galindo, Appellant told the officers:
“‘My homey hit him.’ ‘I just took
his bike and his backpack.’†Appellant
also told the officers where they could find the bicycle and backpack. Reasonable inferences from this evidence are
(1) that Appellant was present at the scene of the robbery, (2) that Appellant
saw his accomplice hit Galindo, and (3) that Appellant took the bicycle and
backpack from Galindo and carried them away.
Appellant did not tell police officers the
version of events that he presented at the adjudication hearing—that it was
“Chino†and “Loca†who took the property from Galindo, and that he (Appellant)
merely carried the backpack to the backyard after Loca threw it over the
gate. Even if this were the case, substantial
evidence demonstrates that Appellant aided and abetted the robbery.
According to Appellant, he had been
spending time with Chino and Loca at 212 East Vernon Avenue. At some point, Appellant was in the backyard
with his brother and a friend, while Chino and Loca were about four houses down
the street. Appellant saw Galindo ride
by on a bicycle. He also saw a crowd
gathered about three or four houses down the street. Next, Appellant saw Galindo running in the
street without his bicycle. Then Chino
arrived with the bicycle and took it into the backyard. Loca threw the backpack over the gate. Appellant indicated that he knew the bicycle
was the one Galindo had been riding, and the backpack was the one Galindo had
been carrying. Appellant assumed that
someone hit Galindo before Chino and Loca took his property. Chino told Appellant to bring the backpack
into the backyard. Appellant complied.
Even if Appellant’s version of
events is credited, substantial evidence demonstrates that the property had not
reached a place of temporary safety at the time Appellant picked up the
backpack and carried it away. (See
aider and abettor, the requisite intent to aid and abet [the robbery] must be
formed before or during such carrying
away of the loot to a place of temporary safetyâ€].) Appellant saw Galindo running and he knew
that Chino and Loca had wrongfully taken Galindo’s property. The incident occurred just a few houses away
on East Vernon Avenue. A reasonable inference
from the evidence is that Chino and Appellant carried the property to the
backyard to conceal it from Galindo, who was still in the vicinity. Substantial evidence shows that Appellant did
not merely receive stolen property, as he argues on appeal. He aided and abetted the robbery by carrying
away the property to a place of temporary safety.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY,
J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD,
Acting P. J.
JOHNSON,
J.
not mean that the prosecution failed to prove identity, as Appellant argues on
appeal. As set forth above, there is
substantial circumstantial evidence that Appellant was involved in the robbery,
including his statement to the police.
