In re Noah
K.
Filed 1/27/14 In re Noah K. CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
In re NOAH K.,
a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B247711
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NOAH K.,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. VJ42833)
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Stephanie M. Davis, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Arielle
Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________________
Noah K. appeals from an order of the
juvenile court declaring him a ward of
the court under Welfare and Institutions
Code section 602 after the court found true an allegation that he committed
second degree robbery, a felony, in violation of
issues for appeal. We find no basis for
reversal and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Lawrence W., 15 years
old, was skateboarding in a parking lot at an elementary school on the
afternoon of July
16, 2012.
He was approached by three young men walking shoulder to shoulder. Lawrence identified appellant as the person in the middle of the group. Appellant told Lawrence to empty
his pockets. As he did so, the man to
appellant’s right brandished a silver pocket knife. Appellant denied seeing the knife and said he
did not know about it. Lawrence was afraid
he would be harmed if he resisted. So he
emptied his pockets, taking out a cell phone.
Appellant took the cell phone.
The three men walked to a car and drove away. Lawrence reported the robbery. He had
a hunch that he knew the man in the middle and looked on Facebook for
photographs posted by friends. He found
a photo of appellant, who attended the same high school. He told an investigating officer that he knew
one of the robbers.
Deputy
Sheriff Aaron King was assigned to investigate the robbery. He spoke to Lawrence, who identified
appellant as the person who took his cell phone. Deputy King contacted appellant. Appellant was advised of his
acknowledged that he understood them. He
initially denied any knowledge or involvement in the robbery of Lawrence. Deputy King told him that he had been
positively identified by the victim, who knew him from school. Appellant admitted that he told Lawrence to empty
his pockets and took the telephone, but said he was not the person with the
knife. Deputy King asked where the cell
phone was. Appellant told him that he
gave it to a friend to hold. Deputy King
contacted that person and recovered a cell phone. He took the phone to Lawrence, who was able
to identify it as his by entering his own password to unlock it in the deputy’s
presence.
A
petition was filed against appellant under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 602, alleging he committed the felony robbery of Lawrence in
violation of Penal Code section 211.
Appellant denied the allegations. Lawrence, Deputy King, and appellant testified
at the adjudication. Appellant’s counsel
made a Miranda objection to Deputy
King’s testimony about appellant’s
admissions of guilt. He argued that
Deputy King was obligated to affirmatively ask appellant whether he wanted an
attorney after appellant acknowledged that he understood his
evidence that appellant indicated that he wanted an attorney during the
interrogation, and the trial court overruled the objection.
Appellant
testified in his own defense. He said he
met the other two robbers, whom he knew from playing basketball, at a
neighborhood park. They offered him a
ride home after the basketball game ended.
As they drove, the two asked appellant if he wanted to “‘jack’†people. He thought this was a joke. But when they saw Lawrence, the other
two said, “Let’s rob him.†Appellant was
not scared, but felt peer pressure to participate in the robbery. He did not know that one of them possessed a
knife and planned to use it in the robbery. He never saw the knife during the course of
the robbery.
The
court sustained the petition, finding evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that
the phone was taken from Lawrence by the use of force and fear.
It found all the elements of robbery under Penal Code section 211 were
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. With
the agreement of counsel, the court immediately proceeded to disposition.
The
court considered the probation report, appellant’s school records demonstrating
improving grades after this incident and prior disciplinary incidents, and
records of completed and continuing counseling.
He also considered a letter submitted by appellant. Appellant had no prior juvenile record. He addressed the court and acknowledged that
he had made a big mistake. He admitted
that he had been stupid, but said “that’s not who I am.†Appellant said he had changed a lot since the
robbery and was attending school and obeying his
the court would not see him again.
The
court followed the probation department’s recommendation and ordered appellant
home on probation. He was ordered to
spend the school spring break from March 29 to April 7, 2013 in juvenile hall. Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We
appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Appointed counsel filed an appellate brief
raising no issues, but asking that we independently review the record on appeal
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, 441–442. We advised appellant
that he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions
or argument he wished this court to consider.
We have received no response to this letter. We have independently reviewed the entire
record on appeal and find no arguable issues that could aid appellant.
DISPOSITION
The
order sustaining the petition is affirmed.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
We concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] Miranda v. Arizona
