In re N.L.
Filed 12/17/12 In re N.L. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re N.L., a
Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
_____________________________________
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
N.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
B232201
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TJ19118)
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior
Court of
County,
Charles R. Scarlett, Judge. Affirmed.
Jonathan
E. Demson, 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, Steven D. Matthews and
Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
N.L. appeals an order declaring him a ward under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 602 based on the finding he committed
a firearm with gross negligence. (Pen.
Code, §§ 211, 246.3, subd. (a).) On
appeal, he claims the evidence is insufficient to support the finding he
committed a robbery in which a wallet, a cell phone and an MP3 player were
taken. However, appellant was detained
approximately half an hour after the robbery and two blocks from the
scene. He generally matched the
description of one of the robbery suspects and he had the victim’s cell phone
and MP3 player. He told the arresting
officer he found the property in an alley.
The juvenile court concluded the robber would not have discarded the
property in an alley so soon after the commission of the offense and sustained
the robbery allegation. We find the
evidence sufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding and affirm the
order under review.
1.
adjudication/motion to suppress.
Walter A. testified that on June 15, 2010,
he was on his way home from school and was waiting with a friend at a bus stop
on Century Boulevard near Western
Avenue in Los
Angeles. A group of six black male youths crossed the
street and approached them. One asked
where they were from and whether they banged.
When Walter A. said he did not, one or perhaps two of the males told
Walter A. and his friend to empty their pockets. One male reached into Walter A.’s pockets and
removed his cell phone, wallet and MP3 player.
The group then walked away.
Walter A. testified he does not remember what any of the males looked
like, he does not recognize anyone in court and he has never identified anyone
involved in the robbery.
On June 15, 2010,
Los Angeles Police Officer Alan Shiao received a radio call regarding four or
five black male suspects. An additional
broadcast indicated one of the suspects was at 98th
Street and Hobart
Boulevard wearing a red
plaid vest. As Shiao turned onto 98th
Street from Western
Avenue, approximately two
blocks from the scene of the robbery, Shiao saw appellant “wearing a
red-and-black multi-colored shirt.â€
Appellant “seemed to be in a hurry†and was “grabbing his pants
pockets.†Shiao stopped appellant at
approximately 2:30 p.m.
and asked if he had anything Shiao should know about. Appellant responded he had “a phone and an
iPod†he found in an alley. Appellant
was sweating and appeared nervous. Shiao
searched appellant and found Walter A.’s cell phone and MP3 player.
Shiao testified the shirt
appellant is wearing in a booking photograph is multi-colored with diamond
shapes of blue, red, yellow, purple and black and dollar signs. It does not appear to be red plaid.
Los Angeles Police Detective
Steven Henry testified that, after he advised appellant of his rights under
436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694], appellant first stated he found the property in an alley
but eventually admitted he took the property from “a Spanish kid [and] was
going to sell [it].â€
Appellant testified at the hearing
on the suppression motion. He admitted
he initially lied to the detective but later told the truth in order to obtain
leniency in court.
2.
The juvenile court’s rulings.
The juvenile court granted
appellant’s motion to suppress his statements to Detective Henry but denied
appellant’s motion to suppress his statements to Officer Shiao. In argument related to the suppression of
appellant’s statements to Shiao, the juvenile court agreed with defense
counsel’s assertion appellant was not wearing a red plaid vest. The juvenile court stated: “We know that because we saw the pictures of
it. It was something that we could
reasonably misinterpret to be plaid if somebody was looking at it.â€
After
suppressing appellant’s confession, the juvenile court noted the remaining
issue was whether someone would take a cell phone and an MP3 player in a
robbery committed 30 or 45 minutes earlier “and then throw it away . . .
.†The juvenile court sustained the
robbery allegation finding appellant’s statement to Shiao was not credible and
“all the evidence points to the fact that he’s the one [who] committed the robbery.â€
Appellant contends the evidence
may be sufficient to sustain an allegation of receiving stolen property, but is
not sufficient to permit the juvenile court to conclude appellant committed the
robbery.
DISCUSSION
When
reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the
most favorable to the judgment below
discloses substantial evidence to support the verdict. (Jackson
v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [61
L.Ed.2d 560];
(1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.) “The
standard of proof in juvenile proceedings involving criminal acts is the same
as the standard in adult criminal trials.â€
(In re Cesar V. (2011)
192 Cal.App.4th 989, 994; In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d
269, 275.)
“ ‘ “It is settled
that when a person is shown to be in possession of recently
stolen property slight
which tend to show guilt supports the conviction of robbery.†[Citation.]’
[Citations.]†(People v. Gamble
(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 446 453; accord People
v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 176.)
Here, the
robbery occurred while Walter A. was on his way home from school. Officer Shiao detained appellant at 2:30 p.m.,
two blocks from the scene of the robbery.
He was walking away from the scene of the robbery, he seemed to be in a
hurry and he was “grabbing at his pants pockets.†Appellant had in his possession two of the
three items taken from Walter A. and he told Officer Shiao he found the
property in an alley.
The
juvenile court found appellant’s proffered explanation was not credible. The false statement and the fact
appellant essentially was fleeing the scene of the robbery demonstrated
consciousness of guilt, which provided some corroboration of appellant’s
possession of Walter A.’s recently stolen property such as to warrant the
conclusion appellant committed the robbery.
(See People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491,
563; People v. Garrison (1989)
47 Cal.3d 746, 773; People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d, 480, 496; In
re Pratt (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 795, 931 [
rise to an inference of consciousness of guilt may be sufficient
876 [flight constitutes an implied admission which may constitute sufficient
corroboration of accomplice testimony].)
Further
corroboration is found in the fact appellant matched the description of one of
the robbery suspects, i.e., a black male wearing a red plaid vest. Although appellant was not wearing a red
plaid vest, he was wearing a multicolored, diamond pattern shirt which the
trial court found reasonably could be misconstrued as plaid. Thus, in addition to his false statement to
Officer Shiao and his flight from the scene, appellant’s appearance generally
matched the description of one of the robbery suspects and thus corroborated
his possession of Walter A.’s recently stolen property so as to permit the
inference appellant committed the robbery.
Appellant argues the fact he was
apprehended with only two of the three items taken in the robbery shows the
robber must have given at least one item to someone else. Thus, appellant might have only received the
stolen property from the individual who robbed Walter A. He claims his false statements, nervousness
and flight from the scene are as consistent with receiving stolen property as
with having committed the robbery.
This argument misconstrues the
prosecution’s burden. Where the
defendant is in possession of recently stolen property which was taken in a
robbery and that possession is corroborated, even slightly, by evidence tending
to connect the defendant to the commission of the robbery, the trier of fact is
permitted to conclude the defendant committed the robbery. (See People v. Mendoza,
v. Gamble, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th
at p. 453.) The fact the evidence also
may be consistent with some lesser offense, such as receiving stolen property,
does not prevent conviction of the greater offense.
In sum, given all the facts presented, including
appellant’s appearance, his apparent flight from the scene and his statement to
Officer Shiao, there is no reasonable chain of events which would account for appellant’s
having Walter A.’s property in his possession very shortly after it was taken
in a robbery, unless he were one of robbers.
We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s finding that appellant
committed the robbery.
The order
declaring appellant a ward of the
juvenile court is affirmed.
KLEIN,
P. J.
We
concur:
KITCHING,
J.
ALDRICH,
J.
title="">[1]
The juvenile court
simultaneously adjudicated the robbery allegation and heard a motion to
suppress appellant’s statements to law enforcement officers.
