In re Armando T.



















Filed
7/18/12 In re Armando T. CA2/4









NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 FOUR






>

In re ARMANDO T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. _________________________________ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARMANDO T., Defendant and Appellant.

B234606 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NJ25896)

APPEAL
from judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Deborah B. Andrews, Judge.
Affirmed.

Lea
Rappaport Geller, 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, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr.
and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

Appellant
Armando T., a minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s order declaring him a
ward of the court under Welfare & Institutions Code Section 602, after
sustaining allegations that he committed second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) He contends there is href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">insufficient evidence to support the
court’s finding. We find sufficient
evidence and affirm the judgment.

>

>FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

After a
school day in May 2011, appellant was walking with Gustavo H. and Jeffrey C.
behind victim Rodrigo, a 13-year-old boy.
Jeffrey suggested they “jack” Rodrigo.
Rodrigo was walking down the street listening to his iPod when the three
boys approached him from behind and surrounded him. Appellant was the biggest boy there. Appellant stood in front of Rodrigo and asked
where he was from. Rodrigo was scared
and believed the boys were gang members.
The other two boys stood on Rodrigo’s sides and went through his pockets
while appellant laughed. Gustavo and
Jeffrey took Rodrigo’s iPod. Appellant
and Jeffrey ran away while Gustavo stayed behind and told Rodrigo that they would
not give back the iPod and they were gang members. After Rodrigo chased Jeffrey, he saw a police
vehicle and told the officer what happened.
Appellant, Gustavo, and Jeffrey were arrested. While they were in the same holding cell,
appellant gave Detective Lawson Rodrigo’s iPod and said he obtained it from
Jeffrey in order to return it.

In June
2011, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging one count of href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] The court denied appellant’s motion to
dismiss and sustained the petition. The
court declared appellant a ward of the court, placed him in a short-term camp
program, and ordered a maximum term of confinement to be aggregated with two
unrelated petitions for a total not to exceed five years and six months. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal
from the judgment.



>DISCUSSION

Appellant moved to
dismiss the petition alleging there was insufficient evidence to prove he stole
the victim’s iPod. Specifically, he
argues there is no evidence he intended to steal the iPod so the judgment must
be reversed. We disagree and affirm.

A court reviewing a challenge based on insufficiency of
evidence views the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine
if there is substantial evidence from which any reasonable trier of fact could
find the defendant to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People
v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1322 (Castaneda).) “Unless it
describes facts or events that are physically impossible or inherently
improbable, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a
conviction.” (>People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535,
585, citing People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) This standard applies in juvenile delinquency
cases. (In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540.)

Robbery is 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.” (§ 211.)
To prove robbery, the prosecution must establish the defendant took
property from the victim “by means of force or fear with the specific intent to
permanently deprive him of that property.
[Citation.]” (>People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1176–1177; See also People v. Lopez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1051, 1058; § 211.) “‘A person aids and abets the commission of a
crime when he or she, (i) with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the
perpetrator, (ii) and with the intent or purpose of committing, facilitating or
encouraging commission of the crime, (iii) by act or advice, aids, promotes,
encourages or instigates the commission of the crime.’ [Citations.]”
(People v. Hill (1998)
17 Cal.4th 800, 851 (Hill),
overruled on another point in Price v.
Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13.)

In >Hill, the court found sufficient
evidence to prove intent for aiding and abetting a robbery when the defendant
and two other men surrounded a car and one of the men stole a passenger’s
purse. (Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th
at pp. 851–852.) The court stated,
“[f]rom these facts, the jury could reasonably infer that defendant and
[the man who physically stole the purse] were working together. Certainly their behavior immediately prior to
the crimes in question (standing together and then approaching the car by
spreading out and surrounding it) suggests a preconceived plan of attack.” (Ibid.)

Even if
appellant did not touch Rodrigo’s iPod, there is still substantial evidence to
find appellant aided and abetted the commission of the crime. Appellant contends conflicts between
Rodrigo’s testimony, appellant’s testimony, and what Rodrigo said to the police
officer means there is insufficient evidence to sustain the petition. However, under the substantial evidence
standard, we must take all evidence in the light most favorable to the
judgment. (Castaneda, supra, 51 Cal.4th at 1322.) Moreover, the juvenile court explicitly
credited Rodrigo’s testimony. The court
found Jeffrey said he was going to “jack” the victim before the boys
approached. At that point, it is
reasonable to infer appellant knew Jeffrey’s purpose. Appellant then stood in front of Rodrigo
while the other boys went through Rodrigo’s pockets. Appellant knew Jeffrey intended to steal, and
blocking Rodrigo from leaving while laughing at him is evidence of his intent
to facilitate the robbery. As in Hill,
the three boys approached and surrounded the victim together. This, along with evidence that appellant fled
after Jeffrey took the iPod, is sufficient for a trier of fact to find
intent. Finally, standing in front of
Rodrigo aided commission of the robbery by preventing Rodrigo from
fleeing. We conclude there is
substantial evidence to find each element of second degree robbery and affirm.



>DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS









EPSTEIN,
P. J.

We
concur:







WILLHITE, J.







SUZUKAWA, J.