legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re K.R.

In re K.R.
06:06:2011

In re K


In re K.R.



Filed 5/25/11 In re K.R. CA6
Reposted to provide signatures
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


K.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

H035826
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. JV36083)


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.


1. Introduction


A security guard at the Vallco shopping mall in Cupertino escorted a group of teenagers out of the mall because he recognized one of them, R.R., as having been previously banned from the mall. Once outside, a melee erupted, eventually involving four current or former mall security guards and five male juveniles, including 16-year-old R.R. and his 15-year-old brother K.R., the minor in this case. After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained felony charges against both the minor and R.R.[1] for assaulting security guard Stas Plotnikov (count 1), security guard Shawn Johnson (count 2), security guard Jason Robinson (count 3), and former security guard Paul Le (count 4). (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)[2] The court impliedly found that counts 1 and 3 involved the use of deadly weapons (a rock and a walkie-talkie, respectively). The court further found that the minor personally inflicted great bodily injury on Plotnikov. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)[3]
On appeal the minor contends that the court's express findings about the cause of Plotnikov's injuries undermine the conclusion that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. He also contends that the use of deadly weapons was not a natural and probable consequence of hand to hand combat, precluding his liability on an aiding and abetting theory. For the reasons stated below, we will strike the personal infliction finding and affirm the jurisdictional order as so modified.

2. Trial Evidence


On February 18, 2010, Paul Le, a former security guard at the Vallco mall, called Shawn Johnson, who was working as a mall security guard that day, to inform him that R.R., who had been banned from Vallco, was in the mall with several young people. According to the minor, the original group included himself, R.R., Desmond, Salena, and Jordan; they were later joined outside by Devon and Johnny. The minor admitted that he had also been banned from the mall.
Johnson approached the group and told R.R. that he had to leave. R.R responded by repeatedly cursing him, but the group headed toward an exit, and Johnson escorted them out. Le, who had been visiting with friends at the mall, trailed behind the group out of concern for Johnson's safety. Outside the mall, R.R. threatened to kill Johnson and his family. Le heard the minor tell his brother more than once, â€




Description A security guard at the Vallco shopping mall in Cupertino escorted a group of teenagers out of the mall because he recognized one of them, R.R., as having been previously banned from the mall. Once outside, a melee erupted, eventually involving four current or former mall security guards and five male juveniles, including 16-year-old R.R. and his 15-year-old brother K.R., the minor in this case. After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained felony charges against both the minor and R.R.[1] for assaulting security guard Stas Plotnikov (count 1), security guard Shawn Johnson (count 2), security guard Jason Robinson (count 3), and former security guard Paul Le (count 4). (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)[2] The court impliedly found that counts 1 and 3 involved the use of deadly weapons (a rock and a walkie-talkie, respectively). The court further found that the minor personally inflicted great bodily injury on Plotnikov. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)[3]
On appeal the minor contends that the court's express findings about the cause of Plotnikov's injuries undermine the conclusion that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. He also contends that the use of deadly weapons was not a natural and probable consequence of hand to hand combat, precluding his liability on an aiding and abetting theory. For the reasons stated below, we will strike the personal infliction finding and affirm the jurisdictional order as so modified.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2026 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2026 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale